Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Madam Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Ron Leighton, esquire, Member for Newham, North-East, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Truancy

Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken to crack down on truancy following the publication of truancy levels in the recent school performance tables.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): My right hon. Friend recently announced a £14 million programme in 1994–95 to help schools and the wider community fight truancy. Eighty-six English local education authorities successfully applied for funds as part of the grants for education support and training—GEST—scheme. A similar programme has been supporting expenditure of some £9.6 million in 1993–94 on schemes proposed by 71 local education authorities.

Mr. Heald: I welcome that reply, but does my right hon. Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend accept that the educational and social consequences of truancy are disastrous for young people? Will he take even more action, first by encouraging the Office for Standards in Education to ensure that the figures submitted by schools are accurate and, secondly, by ensuring that local education authorities employ sufficient educational welfare officers to enforce the provisions?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend's second point is a matter for local education authorities, but I hope that the publication of truancy figures which we began this year will concentrate their minds sufficiently to deal with the problem properly. Ofsted will indeed be seeking to ensure that the returns produced by schools on truancy are correct. We must ensure that all young people of school age are in school where they should be, not only so that they are educated but so that they are kept out of trouble. Those who are not in school when they should be are likely to be getting into trouble, perhaps being pursued by drug pushers or becoming involved in petty crime. Truancy is unacceptable and we must stamp it out.

Mr. Pope: Is the Minister aware of the problems caused by people posing as social workers in order to gain access to children? Will he accept that schemes such as Truancy Watch are nothing but a gimmick, and a dangerous gimmick at that, and that, if the Government were serious about combating truancy, they would invest in more educational welfare officers and in better training and qualifications for them?

Mr. Forth: I am glad to say that that rather pathetic and disgraceful point of view is not shared by the Labour local education authorities which are queuing up to participate in the imaginative Truancy Watch scheme. The hon. Gentleman has apparently taken no account of the fact that in the area that pioneered the scheme juvenile crime during school hours has dropped by 50 per cent. in the first few months of the scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his attitude because it will not gain him any friends.

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding Truancy Watch.

Mr. Forth: One hundred and one schemes were suggested by local education authorities for inclusion in the 1994–95 truancy and disaffected pupils GEST programme. Half the 86 approved schemes include a Truancy Watch element along the lines of a pilot scheme currently operating in Staffordshire. A number of senior police officers and representatives of the business community have welcomed these schemes.

Lady Olga Maitland: May I give a warm welcome to what is clearly a very successful start for Truancy Watch? Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the pilot scheme, juvenile crime has dropped by half? Does he agree that it is absolutely disgraceful that the civil rights organisation, Liberty, is telling children to stand up for their rights and ignore police requests to return to school? Should not children be in school, learning right from wrong and learning to respect authority, rather than cocking a snook at it?

Mr. Forth: It would be tempting to dismiss Liberty as a bunch of eccentric mischief-makers if what it was saying was not so serious. To encourage young people to stay away from school when they should be in school is a social scandal about which I hope the organisation is thoroughly apologetic. I hope that it will reconsider its advice, which does not reflect the widespread concern that I know exists about truancy. I am glad to say that most local education authorities are now very concerned about the problem, as evidenced by the number that have come forward with imaginative ideas to participate in my right hon. Friend's scheme, which is offering £14 million. I hope that everyone will co-operate in reducing truancy across the country.

Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister explain why, despite the success of truancy schemes in Manchester, no resources have been allocated to such schemes for the next financial year?

Mr. Forth: Yes. They produced a rotten bid.

Mr. Lord: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to reduce truancy is to make schools more attractive to pupils? May I urge him and the Secretary of State to


reconsider the proposal to make team games compulsory, especially in secondary schools? Does he agree that team games are enjoyed enormously by most pupils and that even those who may not at first think that they would enjoy them often do so once they are involved?

Mr. Forth: Yes, the importance of team games is very much recognised by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and by the Government as a whole. For precisely the reason that my hon. Friend has given, we must find the best and most satisfactory way of ensuring that everybody connected with schools—teachers, governors and pupils—is involved as far as possible in team games and in all other kinds of sport. I have great confidence that that will happen in future.

Higher Education

Mr. Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students were undertaking courses of higher education 10 years ago and at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): We need high take-up of appropriate and demanding vocational qualifications in the next three years if we are to achieve the challenging national targets for education and training. Our aim is that one in four 16-year-olds should be starting general national vocational qualification courses in 1996. Our longer-term aim is for half of all 16 and 17-year-olds to take GNVQ courses at foundation, intermediate or advanced level.

Mr. Hicks: I am not sure about my hon. Friend's response to my question—

Hon. Members: It was the wrong answer.

Madam Speaker: Order. May I ask the Minister to look at his answer? We are on Question 4.

Mr. Boswell: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We all make mistakes. Come along.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for your indulgence, Madam Speaker.
The Government's policies have led to record student numbers in higher education. Total student numbers in England rose from some 718,000 students in 1982–83 to 1,201,000 in 1992–93—a massive increase of more than 67 per cent.

Mr. Hicks: That sounds a darned sight better answer than the previous one.
Despite the unease that some of us felt about the introduction of student loans, will my hon. Friend say how the level of funding for students in higher education here compares with that for their equivalents in our European partners? Secondly, will he give an assurance that there is no suggestion that our students should be charged part of their tuition fees?

Mr. Boswell: Our student funding package, both in grants and in loans, compares most favourably with those of all our European counterparts and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government have no plans to introduce tuition fees.

Mr. Grocott: Would not it be a good idea if, in line with their thoughts in recent years, the Government started publishing league tables of ministerial competence? It might be helpful if, as well as publishing statistics comparing the number of places in higher education now with the number 10 years ago, they published statistics on the opportunities for school leavers now compared with those a decade ago. Is not it crystal clear that many pupils make the choice simply because there is no alternative open to them? Is not it time that the Government started expanding real opportunities and real choice for school leavers?

Mr. Boswell: It would be an excellent idea for Departments to publish comparative tables; our Department, under my right hon. Friend, would come high. Also, we have a good record in relation to school leavers. For a start, we now have a comprehensive range of vocational qualifications to supplement the well-tried academic qualifications and there has been an expansion in the number of school leavers over the past five years. We have the highest staying-on rate and young people have ranges of qualifications which they will find of great benefit in their future careers.

Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent development that will please many students who are benefiting from higher education is the Government's decision to modify their proposals for student union reform and to introduce a sensible code of practice and the right of students to opt-out? Will he confirm that that is now the Government's policy?

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We now offer a programme, based on the principles set out by my right hon. Friend, of choice, accountability and democracy in student unions and the control of excesses by codes of practice determined by the institutions. That, too, is positive news for students in higher and further education.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Does not the Government clampdown on expansion in higher education mean that institutions are reluctant to make firm offers until A-level results are known? Does not that mean chaos in August for students and for institutions?

Mr. Boswell: Many people would like to see greater certainty in that matter and would like to base all offers on actual rather than prospective or projected qualifications. Our student numbers are at record levels and, if that is a clampdown, it merely reinforces a record level of student numbers.

Grant-maintained Schools

Sir John Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what surveys have been undertaken of the progress being made by grant-maintained schools since acquiring self-governing status.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools has found that self-governing schools use their freedom to good effect. Inspectors have observed in most grant-maintained schools a greater proportion of satisfactory or better than satisfactory lessons than in maintained schools generally, commendable pupil behaviour and attendance


and improved teacher morale. That picture is confirmed by a survey published by the Grant-Maintained Schools Centre in the past month, in which the majority of schools responding reported increasing pupil numbers, improved pupil-teacher ratios and, An the secondary sector, the introduction of new subjects.

Sir John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the disappointment felt by the majority of teachers and governors at St. Thomas high school in my constituency where, in the past week, parents voted down a proposal to become self-governing? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to examine the material circulated by the local education authority and other parties, which, of course, must be governed by a code of conduct?

Mr. Patten: The holder of my office now has powers to declare void ballots where there has been any doubt about any of the material circulated. If my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall not comment on the school in his constituency, for fear that I may have to examine the case. However, I shall ask my hon. Friend to forward all the documents to me.
Without commenting on that case, I understand that Devon is controlled by the Liberal party and, of course, throughout southern and western England, the Liberal party is notorious for its use of underhand political campaigning. Indeed, there have been attempts, led by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), to cause local authority chief education officers to dance to Liberal party tunes.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Secretary of State join me in ensuring that, where all the proper procedures have been followed, he will not go any further in introducing legislation to force schools to become grant-maintained against the wishes of local people?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman knows that, as a fellow geographer, I always listen carefully to him, but I am little surprised that he seems to have lost his daffodil, along with one or two others Opposition Members. I keep my legislative options under continual review.

Mr. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend referred to the lower level of truancy in grant-maintained schools and to higher teacher morale. Is he aware that there is one area in which GM schools do not do so well—competitive sport? The reason is that some local education authorities, for spiteful reasons, will not allow their schools to play competitive sports against GM schools.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. Children who are educated in grant-maintained schools are educated by the state—they are state school children, just as children in maintained schools are educated by the state and are equally state school children. It is true that in certain authorities—Middlesbrough, Nottingham and Derbyshire, to name but three—it is difficult or impossible for local county-maintained schools to play competitive sports against grant-maintained schools. It must be wrong that we can send sporting teams to South Africa but it is impossible to send sporting teams to grant-maintained schools. It is a disgraceful form of educational apartheid.

Mr. Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State accept that, given the lower number of schools that have opted out this month, he has wasted £200,000 of taxpayers' money

on advertisements for GM status? Can he tell the House whether the contents of those advertisements were statements of fact or merely statements of opinion?

Mr. Patten: The Liberal party has even fewer education policies than the Labour party, which is saying quite a lot. The hon. Gentleman, together with some of his hon. Friends in another place, has mentioned the nature and content of the advertisement. He made a great fuss, public to-do and tumult about referring it to the Advertising Standards Authority, which has now given the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends an answer: go away and grow up.

Parental Opinion

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what mechanisms exist for his Department to gauge parental opinion, as consumers, to the extent that it relates to the Government's policy for schools.

Mr. Forth: Like other hon. Members, Ministers receive correspondence from their constituents and are therefore well placed to gauge parental opinion. In addition, parents' views are regularly sought or made known through, for instance, consultations, meetings with representative bodies and special surveys.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister understand that increasingly the consultation on opt-out schools is turning against the Government's policies and opt-out schools are diminishing parental choice, in that schools select pupils, rather than parents selecting schools for their children?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The facts are that the number of schools balloting remains high, the turnout in those ballots remains high and the number of yes votes remains as high as historically it has been since the beginning of grant-maintained schools. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman make a better effort to consult his parents, as he is obviously completely out of touch.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of assessing parental opinion is by looking at what parents do with their children? Will he join me in congratulating St. Mary's college in my constituency, which recently opened, from its own resources, a £750,000 sports centre? That facility will be enjoyed by many children who can take advantage of the assisted places scheme, which allows them to attend that school as a matter of choice by their parents—an opportunity which would be denied to them by a Labour Government.

Mr. Forth: What a refreshing contrast between my hon. Friend's positive attitude and the carping and negative attitude of Opposition Members. I believe that, at the appropriate time, parents up and down the country will draw their own conclusions from the sort of attitudes exemplified in the Chamber.

Mr. Beggs: As the Department assesses the opinion of parents, can the Minister tell the House whether there is any evidence of support for those schools that choose to be more selective with their intakes?

Mr. Forth: I believe that the answer is yes. We have encouraged schools up and down the country to consider their own policies—what they would like to do and how


they would like to do it—to consult parents locally and then to come forward with proposals for changes in their administration policies if they think that that is appropriate. A number of schools do that and a number of them keep the matter under review. That is something that we encourage because it adds to the elements of choice and diversity in education which my right hon. Friend has been determined to encourage since he took office just under two years ago.

National Vocational Qualifications

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what targets have been set for the uptake of general national vocational qualifications among 16 to 19-year-olds over the course of the next three years.

Mr. Boswell: We need high take-up of appropriate and demanding vocational qualifications in the next three years if we are to achieve the challenging national targets for education and training. We are aiming for one in four 16-year-olds to be starting GNVQ courses in 1996. Our longer-term aim is for half of all 16 and 17-year-olds to take GNVQs at foundation, intermediate or advanced level.

Mr. Coombs: In welcoming the evident popularity of GNVQs and their importance to the national training targets, may I ask my hon. Friend to agree that their future success will depend on the standards that they set? In that context, will he examine the comments by Professor Smithers of Manchester university, who said that the qualifications were not sufficiently knowledge-orientated, rather than skills-orientated, and that they should be assessed universally by an examination?

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. As he will know, the message is so good that inadvertently I have repeated it, but it does bear repeating.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's comments on rigour. I refer him to the speech that I delivered this morning at the GNVQ workshop conducted by the Confederation of British Industry, in which I analysed all our remaining concerns about GNVQs and dealt with them in a positive but constructive mode.

Further Education Colleges

Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure that colleges of further education publish information regularly for parents and employers about their achievements.

Mr. Boswell: Colleges are required to publish extensive information about the achievements and career destinations of students and make this available to local schools for distribution to pupils in year 11. In 1993, we first included college achievements in the comparative performance tables. We expect colleges to develop their own charters which will highlight performance information. Through these arrangements, we are determined to help young people and their parents to make informed decisions about all the options available.

Mr. Richards: Does my hon. Friend agree that the performance tables are vital in helping students and employers to decide which courses best suit their needs? Are not they crucial in helping to increase post-16

education, particularly in my constituency where the excellent Llandrillo college recently won a national training award?

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is entirely right. We believe in giving schools, colleges, parents and pupils an information revolution in which they will be given as much information as possible. That will expand the opportunities and raise the standards for all in the crucial area between the ages of 16 and 19.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister have any information on the number of students who are being obliged to leave further education because they cannot afford to carry on with their courses? Is not that because they are unable to obtain discretionary grants, income support or housing benefit? Will the Minister, with his colleagues, consider putting together a satisfactory package of funding for further education students, so that we can have an end to the terrible waste of resources and the failure to train our young people to take up their opportunities?

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman will know that current provision on discretionary awards varies by local education authority. He will also be aware that, through the Sir John Cass and Gulbenkian Foundation, we are conducting an authoritative study on the matter which we will publish at the end of March. We shall then carefully consider its conclusions.

Mr. Evennett: While I welcome the publication of more information by colleges of further education, will my hon. Friend give a continuing commitment to school sixth forms? Will he confirm that the Government believe in choice and diversity in education post-16 and that school sixth forms do a good job in developing young people's education in addition to colleges of education?

Mr. Boswell: I have no difficulty in agreeing with my hon. Friend. Recently, we published a new framework for the way in which we handle proposals for school sixth forms alongside further education colleges. They are both important, they are not antagonistic and they should be complementary.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Do the achievements of the colleges of further education include the decision of Bath further education college to sack 60 lecturers? The college has now had to rescind that decision and go to arbitration. Would not the Minister do better to urge further education employers to go to arbitration, rather than supporting the employers in a decision to foment industrial unrest?

Mr. Boswell: I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman suggests that I should involve myself in an industrial dispute. I made it clear, in the context of the holdback letter that we sent to the colleges employers' forum, that we expect some progress on flexibility in contracts. We are not prepared to intervene in the details and I am sure that both parties will be able to resolve the matter amicably and positively between themselves.

Schools (Drug Abuse)

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures he is taking to combat drug abuse in schools.

Mr. Forth: Education is an important element of the Government's strategy for tackling drug abuse. The national curriculum requires teaching about the harmful effects of drugs, and helps to develop pupils' capacity to resist pressure to misuse drugs. My Department has published guidance for schools and has funded projects, materials and national bodies working in this field.

Mr. Ainsworth: May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and ask him to continue to provide as much reassurance as possible to parents throughout the country who are rightly worried about this important matter? Will he extend education about drug abuse from the higher stages in children's careers to the youngest sensible age?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I believe that the content of the curriculum covering this important matter is about right at present. We start at a very early stage and build up the information about drugs imparted in the classroom to our young people, the effect that they have on the body, the effects of misuse and so on. That is surely one of the most important contributions that education can make to informing young people about drugs and their harmful effects. I believe that as we see the effect of the national curriculum accumulating over the generations of young people, the beneficial effects of education on drugs will become ever more clear.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: If drug education in schools is so important, as the Opposition as well as parents know why have Government cuts reduced the number of drug education co-ordinators from 135 this time last year to a mere 75 today? What kind of message does the Minister think that that sends to parents and young people alike?

Mr. Forth: I think that the hon. Lady is referring to decisions by local education authorities throughout the country and their prioritisation for expenditure. It was indeed the case that some years ago my Department initiated a pump-priming grant, for a specific period only, to allow local education authorities to assess the value of the co-ordinators. The pump priming was extended not once but twice. It then came to an end. Local education authorities, correctly in my view, are now making their own decisions about their priorities.

Mr. Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Daily Express, which reported its investigation into drug abuse in schools over three days last week? Does he accept that the problem afflicts not only schools in the inner cities but schools everywhere in the country, including in my constituency? Does he agree that it is essential that staff and teachers maintain the utmost vigilance if we are to eradicate the menace?

Mr. Forth: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Of course, truancy is another element. It must surely be the case that when young people are not in school where they should be, they are vulnerable in shopping centres or wherever, to drug pushers and others who seek to abuse or mislead the children. Therefore, our strong emphasis on tackling truancy is an important part of the overall strategy to reduce the vulnerability to drugs of our young people.

Parental Choice

Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on parental choice of schools.

Mr. Patten: The Government have given parents the right to express a preference for their choice of school. In some 90 per cent. of cases, that preference is met. Parents now have much more information, in particular through the publication of school performance tables, school prospectuses and annual reports. There is a wider choice of schools now, with the expansion of the self-governing grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, more schools with sixth forms, and the network of new technology colleges which I launched yesterday.

Dr. Wright: How does the Minister explain parental choice to the parents at Five Ways primary school in my constituency who have just been told that the Department for Education will not allow them to expand that popular and successful school because someone in Whitehall has discovered that there are surplus places at a school two miles away? What would the Minister further say to the 38,000 parents who last year had to go to appeal because they were not given the school place of their choice? Does not that show that although the Government talk about parental choice, it means increased power for schools to choose parents and less power for parents to choose schools?

Mr. Patten: Labour-controlled Staffordshire county council does not have the best reputation for local education administration. The second of the hon. Gentleman's two questions about the number of appeals shows how well the parents charter and the citizens charter are working. Parents are rightly making successful use of the appeals mechanism. Nine out of 10 parents receive their first choice the first time, which is good. I do not know about the case of the specific school mentioned by the hon. Gentleman in the first of his two questions. If he writes to me I shall personally consider the position and write to him.
If there are two schools within two miles of each other, and there are many surplus school places, there should probably be only one school. The school left should be the high-quality school around whose walls parents queue for their children to gain admission. We want top-quality schools, not half-empty schools such as those kept by Labour local education authorities, in Staffordshire, for example.

Mr. Ashby: What choice do parents in north-west Leicestershire have when the local education authority refuses to pay the travel costs of children whose parents have made a choice of school? That applies particularly in rural districts where distances travelled may be great.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. Leicestershire is another local authority that is notorious for discriminating against parental choice. In the same way, the new Lib-Lab pact in Essex is trying to discriminate against those who want to send their children to schools of their choice.

Madam Speaker: rose—

Mr. Patten: The Liberal and Labour parties are doing the same thing in Wiltshire, where they are deliberately discriminating against parents who exercise the choice to give their children a religious education.
I am sorry for that, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I should hope so.

Nursery Education

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to change the standard spending assessment calculation for the education of under-fives.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): As part of his review of policy on under-fives, my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the implications for the under-fives element of standard spending assessments.

Mr. Pickthall: Since the Prime Minister, and subsequently the Secretary of State, have recently discovered the virtues of nursery education, would it not be sensible, just and financially prudent to change the basis of the SSA calculation for under-fives away from a simple population count in a local authority towards the provision of places in a local authority? That would get rid of what is, in effect, a subsidy for bad providers to spend elsewhere in their budget. It would allow good providers relief from having to cut other sectors in their budget in order to provide good nursery education.

Mr. Squire: We shall bear the hon. Member's observation in mind—other hon. Members have also advanced that argument. A number of local education authorities provide good provision for under-fives while maintaining spending at the SSA level. If the hon. Gentleman's desire, which is certainly that of the Government, is to see an expansion of the service, it would seem perverse to change dramatically the way in which the SSA is distributed in favour of those who are already serving a large number of under-fives.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend consider, not only the SSA calculations for county councils, but the relationship with first schools and the grant-maintained sector? Send first school in my constituency, which is grant maintained, is anxious to provide nursery provision. I know that the Department is currently considering that case.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend will understand if I avoid giving an answer on the specific school that he mentioned. We shall look carefully at all applications from schools, including grant-maintained schools, that seek nursery provision. Where applicants fall within laid down criteria, we shall seek to satisfy my hon. Friend's justifiable concerns.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Why did not the Minister have the good grace to mention the fact that, of the 40 top providers of nursery education, 40 are Labour education authorities? Why does he not stop including all forms of child care in the same bracket as high quality nursery education, and give advice and guidance to all local education authorities to start providing more and more nursery places?

Mr. Squire: The reason that I did not give the answer that the hon. Gentleman wanted was that I was not asked the question. As the hon. Gentleman has now asked the question, I shall underline the fact that, of the 34 Labour authorities that the Labour party is anxious to boast about in terms of nursery education, 70 per cent. fall in the bottom 40 for exam results and 82 per cent. fall within the bottom 50 for truancy levels. We should hear a bit about that.

Schools (Northumberland)

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he has any plans to visit schools in Northumberland to discuss school budgets.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit Northumberland schools. My colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), will visit two schools in Northumberland on 14 March.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the Minister visits two schools in my constituency so that he can become aware of the problem posed by the combined effect of the county needing to fund the 2.9 per cent. teachers' pay increase and facing a capping limit of 1.5 per cent., the result of which is that all schools in the county face reductions in their budgets. Is he aware of the problem? What does he plan to do about it?

Mr. Forth: Northumberland does no worse and no better—it is very close to the average if one looks at the pattern of schools' expenditure. I see no reason why an efficient and responsible local education authority should be unable to maintain the standards that we expect of it in the current financial circumstances. There is no proven causal connection between the level of expenditure and quality of education output. I would expect that in the right hon. Gentleman's area, as in all others, school governors, teachers, heads and the local education authority would take it on themselves to continue to deliver a proper standard of education.

Mr. Bellingham: When the Minister is on his way back from Northumberland, will he make a detour to Norfolk and visit some schools there—

Madam Speaker: Order. No. I am afraid that he cannot.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Like the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I am very disappointed by the response from the Minister about the visit to Northumberland. Is the Minister aware that about four fifths of the population of Northumberland live in the urban south-east corner, with the rest in the rural part? We are quite happy to support the high cost of rural education in Northumberland, but would it not be better for the Minister to go up there and see what is happening rather than regard the area as if it were part of a colony in darkest Africa?

Mr. Forth: Northumberland is treated in exactly the same way as all the other 108 local education authorities. They are all subject to the same impartial, even-handed treatment, both by the funding formula and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We would, therefore, expect Northumberland, like all other local education


authorities, to ensure that it delivers a proper, acceptable and increasingly high standard of education to all its pupils.

Mr. Harry Greenway: When considering the budgets of Northumbrian schools, will my hon. Friend reflect on the great success of the policy of devolving budgets to schools in Northumberland and elsewhere, the more responsible spending that has resulted from it and the much more valuable spending from the point of view of the pupils, which is what schools are all about?

Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed. The local management of schools programme has been one of the most successful programmes in the past few years. It has proved some important things, not least that if responsibility is given to governors and heads they will seize it and make full use of it in coming to difficult decisions about priorities in their schools, and that these decisions are far better made where they matter, in the school and in the classroom, rather than in some local education authority which is probably remote.

Students (Employment)

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has on the percentage of students attending universities who are supplementing their grants or loans by employment in term-time jobs.

Mr. Boswell: Information derived from the recent student income and expenditure survey indicates that, of students sampled, 23 per cent. had some earnings during term-time, and rather more during the Christmas and Easter vacations. Information is not available to indicate whether the students concerned were in receipt of grants or student loans.

Mr. Wareing: Is not it absolutely deplorable, after the years of the great Thatcherite economic miracle, that students today are in a worse position than they were before 1979? Is not it disgraceful that the Government seem to have no plans whatever to encourage students to keep to their main task, study during term-time? What are the Government going to do about it?

Mr. Boswell: I find the question absolutely extraordinary. The hon. Gentleman needs to remember how many universities there were in Liverpool when my right hon. and noble Friend became Prime Minister. He also needs to recognise the huge achievements of the two universities in Liverpool in establishing a city of learning. In his spare time, he may care to reflect that we now have record student numbers, no increase in student drop-out and the most effective and successful higher education system in the world.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of young people's education must include doing part-time and holiday work, and that it is educationally beneficial to them?

Mr. Boswell: It is very much a matter of degree, but not many students get by without working at some stage during their studies. It is the norm in many other countries that students must work their way through college, whereas we produce a generous student support package. That is reflected in the efficiency arid timing of our degrees and the quality of the results achieved.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps are being taken to encourage schools to consider the option of grant-maintained status.

Mr. Patten: The governing body of every local education authority-controlled school is now required to consider, at least once a year, whether to hold a ballot on whether the school should seek grant-maintained status and, if they decide against it, to explain their decision to parents. In addition, to be helpful we are setting up a network of local centres to give factual information on grant-maintained schools. There is already one such centre in Bolton, and to be particularly helpful, we are just setting one up at the excellent Castle Hall school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).

Mr. Arnold: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking those steps to combat the immense amount of negative propaganda against grant-maintained schools. Is he aware that, in authorities like Liberal and Labour-controlled Kent, £100,000 of education funds have been diverted to those black propaganda activities? Will he look at the leaflets and at the scaremongering, which is worrying parents and teachers?

Mr. Patten: The parents of Kent have already voted overwhelmingly in favour of grant-maintained status. For example, by 1 April more than half the secondary school children in Kent will be educated in grant-maintained schools. I will certainly look extremely carefully at what strikes me as a scandalous waste of money by the chief education officer for Kent and his officials on that black propaganda.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in the United States for a series of meetings, including some with President Clinton and the United Nations Secretary-General.

Mr. Mudie: Is the Lord President aware that more than £1 billion of taxpayers' money spent to persuade people to take out personal pensions ended up in the pockets of salesmen through commissions? Is he also aware that more than 300,000 men and women are losing benefit because of bad advice? Given that growing scandal, is not there a case for urgent Government action, or is this, once again, something for which the Government will take no responsibility?

Mr. Newton: I do not regard the fact that some 5 million people have taken out personal pensions, which will significantly improve their prospects in retirement, as anything like a scandal. The hon. Gentleman will know


that some of the advice that has been given is currently under examination, which is entirely right. I know of no reason to justify his accusation.

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the obvious success of the Prime Minister's visit to the United States? Does he recall that Sir Winston Churchill variously described the temperature of our special relationship with the United States as normal and blazing? What is the temperature now?

Mr. Newton: I can best describe the relationship as very cordial indeed. It is a long-standing relationship based on shared interests, as has been confirmed at a joint press conference which my right hon. Friend and the President held within the past hour or so. Their discussions have covered a wide range of international issues, including Bosnia, Russia and the world economy. The President's support for the joint declaration on Northern Ireland was particularly welcome. The visit is confirmation that we have a continuing, strong, all-round relationship with the United States.

Mrs. Beckett: When the President of the Board of Trade has need of legal advice, to whom does the Leader of the House suggest he turns?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been advised, quite properly, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and made the position entirely clear in his evidence to the Scott inquiry yesterday.

Mrs. Beckett: Is not the position of the Attorney-General as the Government's chief legal adviser becoming increasingly untenable as Ministers seem to use him as a scapegoat to save their own skins?

Mr. Newton: The concern of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was clearly an anxiety that people might misrepresent him in exactly the way that the right hon. Lady is now seeking to do. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General's advice on public interest immunity has remained consistent and, of course, he is due to give evidence to the inquiry.

Mrs. Beckett: Does not the Leader of the House realise that what sticks in the throat of the British public is that, having secretly sold arms to Saddam Hussein, which were used against British troops, Ministers were prepared to see innocent men go to gaol to cover up their conspiracy and that is what people cannot stomach?

Mr. Newton: Let me remind the right hon. Lady what was written in a letter to The Times as long ago as 12 November 1992:
Public interest immunity cannot be waived by either the prosecution or the Ministers. It was for the judge to decide whether the interests of justice in ensuring a fair trial for the defendants outweighed those considerations of public interests referred to in the certificates. There was no question of anyone attempting to suppress evidence".
That letter was written by counsel for one of the accused.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Department of Health action on safari holidays for young offenders?

Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed I shall. There is a widespread view that those overseas trips were inappropriate. We are all concerned to see effective, proper treatment and deterrents for young offenders and the statement this afternoon will help bring that about.

Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Janner: When the Prime Minister returns from his visit to the United States, will he be kind enough to look personally into the case of my constituent Paul Kenney, who did not return from his journey to Portugal, but was found dead on a beach? Will he please consult his colleague the Prime Minister of Portugal, who has not had the common decency to tell the parents, or me as their representative, why this lad died, how he died, whether he was murdered or why the parents could not find the body for a month? If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is the Government's duty to look after ordinary citizens when they travel abroad, will he please start raising merry hell about this case?

Mr. Newton: I am conscious of the hon. Gentleman's understandable concern for his late constituent and I have of course looked at the Adjournment debate he had not long ago. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that during his visit to Portugal on 24 and 25 February, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the case with the Portuguese Foreign Minister and I hope that that was helpful.

Sir Roger Moate: Will my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Secretary, personally do their utmost to ensure the success of the negotiations, which are at a critical point, on Norwegian entry into the European Community? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be quite outrageous if the unreasonable demand by the Spanish Government for a few thousand tonnes of Norwegian cod were to prevent the entry into the Community of one of our closest friends and a fine European country?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend knows very well that it has been a prime objective of the British Government to bring about enlargement of the Community and the progress that has been made is one of our significant achievements over the past couple of years. On some reports I have seen today, progress has been rather greater so far in respect of Sweden and Finland; apparently, there remains some way to go, but we shall wish to see negotiations with all four applicants successfully negotiated.

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gunnell: The right hon. and noble Baroness Thatcher missed one Prime Minister's Question Time in 12; the present Prime Minister has missed one in eight. Whatever the importance of the present visit, does not that frequent absence devalue his accountability to the House? Why is he more anxious to answer questions in Pittsburgh than in Parliament?

Mr. Newton: I must say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I usually regard as among the more reasonable of those on the Opposition Benches, that I reject out of hand the suggestion that he has made. I think that my right hon. Friend's achievement in various international negotiations both in Europe and on the wider scene are among the main achievements that he has put forward on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Garnier: While my right hon. Friend is in the United States, will he be given an opportunity to tell the people, as opposed to the President of the United States, of the true nature, history and habits of the IRA?

Mr. Newton: I have already referred to the very welcome support of the President for the joint declaration. I hope that that in itself will have an effect on some strands of opinion in the United States which may perhaps have failed to appreciate the true nature of the IRA.

Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mandelson: Does the Lord President of the Council agree that, with unemployment still up around the 3 million level, with many young and long-term unemployed in that number, jobs remain the biggest single issue facing the country? In the light of that, will the Lord President of the Council respond positively to the important initiative taken today by the Trades Union Congress to work in co-operation with all political parties on policies to get unemployment down?

Mr. Newton: I welcome any kind of co-operation by the TUC or, indeed, anybody else, in the interests of maintaining the recovery from recession, which is the secure basis for the jobs that the hon. Gentleman wants to see. If I may say so, it will not be served by the Labour party's support for a minimum wage, a 35-hour week and many new burdens on business.

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Lady Olga Maitland: May I convey to my right hon. Friend the House's full support for the Downing street declaration on Northern Ireland? Has my right hon. Friend been able to take note of the survey that took place over the weekend in the Irish Republic which showed that the vast majority of the people there call on the IRA-Sinn Fein to renounce violence?

Mr. Newton: I do very much agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful for her words. As she knows, the Government are making every effort to seek peace in

Northern Ireland. It is heartening to note that some 94 per cent. of people questioned in the Irish marketing survey agreed with calls on the IRA and Sinn Fein to renounce violence. I am sure that that corresponds with the overwhelming wish in this country and, indeed, many others. I hope that their leaders will take note.

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evans: Is the Lord President of the Council aware that if the highly efficient borough of St. Helens received the same level of revenue support grant as the boroughs of Wandsworth and Westminster it would not be required to charge its citizens one single penny in council tax? Does he feel that there might be a whiff of scandal and corruption in that?

Mr. Newton: No, I do not.

Mr. Fabricant: While condemning the appalling massacre in Hebron, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that that was the work of a lone madman and that, for the sake of the 300 million people who live in that area, it should not in any way impede the peace process?

Mr. Newton: Like, I am sure, everyone on both sides of the House, I share the horror at the massacre of innocent Palestinians in Hebron on 25 February. I am sure that the whole House would once again want to send its condolences to those who were affected and their families. I accept entirely and agree with my hon. Friend that the massacre must not be allowed to jeopardise the peace process. The British Government will certainly do everything that they can to see that it does not.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cunningham: Does the Lord President recall that, referring to the setting up of the Scott inquiry, the Prime Minister said that no restrictions would be placed on its terms of reference? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that ex-employees of Matrix Churchill and their representatives have been denied the right to give evidence to the inquiry, and that Lord Justice Scott has said that he will consider the matter if the Government and the Prime Minister agree? What is the Lord President going to do about it?

Mr. Newton: I think that it is generally true to say that the procedures of the inquiry are for Lord Justice Scott to consider and operate. Obviously, if there were perceived to be problems and if representations were made to the Government about difficulties that they could do something about, those difficulties would be considered extremely carefully.

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any Government Department that hands out special green forms to job applicants who are related to politicians—forms that receive preferential treatment—and pink forms to everyone else? Is he aware that that disgraceful form of nepotism is being practised by Labour-controlled Monklands council? Will he join me in urging

condemnation of the practice by the local Member of Parliament—the Leader of the Opposition, who has been strangely silent on the subject?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may feel surprised that his question has been reached. He has raised a very interesting point; I might speculate that the absence of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) arose from nervousness that the question might be reached.

Air Attack (Bosnia)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With your permission, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so very quietly and rapidly? We have an important statement from the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Hurd: With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on recent events in Bosnia.
At 6.31 local time yesterday morning, six Galeb single-seater air-to-ground attack aircraft were identified by NATO airborne warning and communication system aircraft over Bosnia. A NATO combat air patrol consisting of two United States F16 aircraft went to intercept and investigate. At 6.35, the AWACS issued a warning to the six Galeb aircraft.
At 6.42, the NATO aircraft visually identified the planes. A minute later, the NATO pilots observed what they believe were bombs exploding in and near a factory. It is thought that the target was an ammunition factory near Novi Travnik. Between 6.42 and 6.45, further warnings were issued, and again no response was received.
At 6.45, NATO aircraft shot down one of the violating aircraft, and in the next five minutes three more of those violating aircraft were shot down. The remaining two were reported as having flown into Croatian airspace, at which point the engagement was ended in accordance with the NATO rules of engagement for enforcement of the no-fly zone. There were later reports that the two aircraft were seen landing from the north at Banja Luka airport.
This was the first known violation of the zone by a formation of fixed-wing aircraft. The action was taken under the authority of United Nations Security Council resolution 781, which established the no-fly zone, and resolution 816, which authorised its enforcement and which was adopted unanimously by the Security Council. The House will have noted the unanimity of views on the incident during my right holt Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Washington. I discussed it yesterday with the Greek Prime Minister, the American Secretary of State and the Russian Foreign Minister. Hon. Members will have seen statements by Mr. Churkin, the Deputy Russian Foreign Minister, that any party that violated the no-fly zone had to bear full responsibility for the consequences.
Those events and the reaction to them show that the parties should be in no doubt of our earnest in implementing decisions on Bosnia. We shall continue active work with the international community on how to build on the progress in Sarajevo and reach a negotiated settlement.
I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States of America have today announced an initiative to promote the reconstruction of Sarajevo in order to normalise life in the city. A joint British-American civil planning mission will be established to work with the city authorities in Sarajevo, with the European Union and with the United Nations to assess what is needed to restore public utilities in the city.
Meanwhile, the UN will be drawing up plans to assess the feasibility and the means of breaking the siege of other cities and towns in Bosnia, including Mostar, Vitez and

Maglaj. That is in addition to the plans, of which the House already knows, to rotate the UNPROFOR contingent in Srebrenica and to reopen Tuzla airport to receive supplies of humanitarian aid.
Reports are coming in from Moscow that the Bosnian Serb leader, Mr. Karadzic, has reached agreement with the Russian Foreign Minister on how Tuzla airport might be reopened with Bosnian Serb consent. If confirmed, that, too, would be a welcome step.
On the wider front, the Americans are telling us of substantial progress in the effort, which I support, to reach agreement among the Croats, the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims. Those are all good examples of the concerted international effort now being made to extend the progress in Bosnia and to make the humanitarian effort more effective.

Dr. John Cunningham: I am obliged to the Foreign Secretary for that statement, which I called for yesterday. I believe that many people in the House will share my view that it should have been made yesterday.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we believe that, by arming and dispatching six aircraft on a bombing mission, someone deliberately attempted to flout UN resolution 781, which established the no-fly zone over Bosnia? The right hon. Gentleman was very careful in his statement not to identify the aircraft or those people who dispatched them. Is any evidence yet available to identify the aircraft that have been shot down, and therefore to lead to a conclusion as to who was responsible for that challenge to the authority of the United Nations in the no-fly zone?
The action obviously was a flagrant breach of resolution 781 of the Security Council and, in connection with it, it is quite clear that the action taken by American F16s under the NATO command was fully justified by resolution 816 of the Security Council, which gave effect to the implementation of the no-fly zone resolution. The indisputable legality of the action to enforce the UN Security Council resolution is clear, and it has my support and, I believe, the overwhelming support of hon. Members.
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm reports from Moscow that the Bosnian Serbs have now apparently, very belatedly, agreed to the reopening of Tuzla airport? If so, that would be good news. Has a date been set for the implementation of that decision by the UN? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the apparent threats by the Serbian chief of staff, General Milovanovic, to attack aid convoys? Has UNPROFOR made it clear that such action would not be tolerated?
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House the current status of the humanitarian aid programme in Bosnia—air flights and convoys? Does he accept that we support his recognition of the need to keep Russian support for progressive implementation of Security Council resolutions on safe areas, and other resolutions referring to the situation on the ground in Bosnia? If such progress can be achieved and Russia continues effectively to secure Serbian compliance, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it should not be necessary for lethal air power to be used again?
May I welcome the decision of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister to launch an initiative for the reconstruction of Sarajevo, which is very good news? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the


House more details of that initiative, and will he confirm that it will involve not only America and Britain, but all members of the European Union?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support for the action taken yesterday. It is not yet clear from where the six Galeb planes came, although it seems at least possible that it was from airports that are under the control of Serbs in Croatia. That is not yet certain.
In my statement, I mentioned the reports from Moscow about Tuzla, which I and the right hon. Gentleman have read. The United Nations has plans, which have been drawn up by General Rose, for reopening Tuzla airport. It remains to be seen how that will mesh in with whatever has been agreed in Moscow. I hope that it will not be too long before that happens.
Aid convoys are proceeding. Of course, each day, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and her representatives on the spot have to judge with our people—the Overseas Development Administration for example—how convoys can safely operate on a particular day, but aid is flowing, although not yet in the quantities that are needed and which we would like.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of keeping the Russians on board. That is why I telephoned Moscow twice yesterday about the incident, and I was glad of the response that I received. It is important—especially if there is continued progress on bringing the Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats together—that the Russians should continue to put the necessary pressure on the Bosnian Serbs, so the Russians' part in the matter is important.
I cannot give further details of the Anglo-American initiative on Sarajevo. I have set out the details of what has been agreed between the Prime Minister and the President. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the initiative is not exclusive—others are free to join it.

Mr. Tom King: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which he contacted the Russian authorities, and I note the obvious importance of that move at this sensitive time. Does he agree that whoever was responsible for the flagrant violation of the no-fly zone has received the clearest message, as the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said? If anyone else seeks to embark on such a course, it is vital that they receive the same message. With the clarity of that message comes far greater hope for peace in the future.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I agree. Whatever the exact origin of the planes, it was clearly a deliberate provocation and a test of the no-fly zone—a test which NATO passed.

Sir Russell Johnston: Whether they came from Banja Luka or Krajina, I am puzzled that we did not have the capacity to detect six aircraft lifting off the ground at much the same time. Perhaps the Secretary of State could explain. What is the policy on helicopters in the no-fly zone? Are they being left alone?
Like the right hon. Member for Copeland, I welcome the Sarajevo initiative. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that it is being initiated on the assumption that Sarajevo will not become a divided city?
When the Secretary of State spoke to Prime Minister Papandreou, did he take the opportunity to say that many people think that Greece's attitude to Macedonia and its blockade is wholly unjustified?

Mr. Hurd: The aircraft were identified quickly by the AWACS. It is not clear from where they started, but they were quickly identified and efficiently dealt with.
On future enforcement, as I said, the events were the first infringement of the no-fly zone by a unit or force of fixed-wing aircraft. Serb and Croat helicopters have certainly violated the rule before. Helicopters are much more difficult to deal with. One cannot be certain of their purpose—they may be carrying wounded or supplies, so it is less easy—but it is a matter for local judgment and discretion.
As for Macedonia, the former Yugoslav republic, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I made these very points to the Greek authorities yesterday. The Greeks have anxieties and concerns which are very widely felt in Greek public opinion, but I said that, in the view of Greece's partners, that does not justify action that is almost certainly illegal in terms of trade, and which certainly diminishes the authority and influence of Greece as President of the EC.

Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement about NATO's swift resolve in enforcing UN resolutions is very welcome, and was much better made today than yesterday, as the facts become clearer?
Will he reassure us that the same resolve will continue to be applied in the renaissance of Sarajevo, which is very welcome news, in lifting the siege on Srebrenica and other towns and, of course, in unblockading Tuzla airport? Does he agree that Russian co-operation, which was welcomed yesterday and which continues to be welcome, is indeed what we want, as long as Russia is playing its full part in the international community, as a member of the United Nations and as part of the peacekeeping effort, and is not seeking to reassert influences from the distant past in ways which, in the distant past, disturbed rather than stabilised areas of the Balkans?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with all my right hon. Friend's points, including the last. These are steps forward. There may well be reverses and disappointments in Bosnia in the future, but it is beginning to look as if we may be at the beginning of the end of what has been a nightmare.

Mr. Tony Benn: As this is the first time that NATO forces have ever been engaged in combat since the organisation was set up—and set up for quite a different purpose—can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Prime Minister were notified in advance of the intention to shoot down aircraft which had not been shot down hitherto in the no-fly zone?
Is it not strange that, despite all the marvellous intelligence available, the Foreign Secretary cannot yet tell us the origin or nature of the aircraft that were shot down? Is he aware that NATO is not the world's policeman and that for a British Foreign Secretary to speak of Russia being "kept on board"—when the responsibility rests with the United Nations of which Russia is a permanent member, and when Russia has a much closer interest in the Balkans than the President of the United States whose aircraft were engaged—is clearly not a matter that can be


brushed aside as if this were a western action to maintain peace on behalf of the United Nations, whose Security Council was never consulted specifically on the military action?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has not been following this matter with his usual care. NATO was acting within the framework of United Nations Security Council resolution 781, which established the no-fly zone, and resolution 816, which authorised its enforcement and which the Russians supported.
Therefore, the line of authority is very clear—from the Security Council, with a proper vote and proper support, unanimity—through a NATO decision authorising action. In these situations, one cannot hang about while everyone is consulted. Either the planes, which were rapidly identified and were bombing a target on the ground, are dealt with effectively or they are not. There has to be authority; there has to be a framework of law. They were in place and NATO took effective action.

Mr. John Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about the precise nature of the relationship of Russian troops to the United Nations command and control systems in the Balkans? Does he agree that the closer the relationship between Russian, French and British troops in the policing of the operation, the better? Has he had positive signals to that effect from contact with his counterparts in Russia?

Mr. Hurd: Yes indeed; those are Russian troops that have been in Croatia under UN command for some time, and they are now in Bosnia under UN command. They are in exactly the same position under the same authority as are the British troops in Bosnia. They are under UN command.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Are Russian motives utterly compatible with those of NATO?

Mr. Hurd: One has to judge the tree by its fruits, and the Russians' actions in the past few weeks, first in Sarajevo, and again yesterday in the way in which they responded to the incident, have been positive and helpful. Of course we cannot take it for granted that there wall be no disagreements in the future, but in the past two or three weeks, their co-operation has been very helpful.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is no use talking tough unless one is prepared to act with comparable toughness, and that on this occasion NATO has done both, when put to the first real test of whether it is prepared to take military action in support of United Nations resolutions?
My right hon.. Friend has not told the House where the American aircraft flew from. I presume that they came from an aircraft carrier, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as Italy is a member of NATO, the Italian Government are perfectly happy for Italian air bases to be used in support of NATO operations?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, of course; the answer to my hon. Friend's second question is yes. Those arrangements were made and completed in great detail, with the full co-operation of Italy as a member of NATO. I am sorry, but I cannot remember my hon. Friend's first question.

Mr. Colvin: I asked for confirmation that there was no point in talking tough unless one was prepared to act tough.

Mr. Hurd: The House knows, and I think that it agrees, that in this country we are not in favour of talking indiscriminately of military action as though it could bring peace. We know that it cannot, and that is why, as I have described, the peace effort has to go ahead. However, we have judged that, for certain measured purposes, the use of armed force is necessary, and one of those is in order to respond to infringements of the no-fly zone.

Mr. Max Madden: I welcome the fact that decisive action has at long last been taken to implement United Nations resolutions in Bosnia. Can the Secretary of State say more about what action will be taken to give proper protection to the so-called protected areas? Will he also stifle any prospect of a unilateral withdrawal of UNPROFOR forces from Bosnia in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Hurd: There has never been any question of British troops being withdrawn unilaterally from UNPROFOR. It is clear that their presence and that of those serving alongside them in UNPROFOR will be needed, at any rate for the time to come.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I mentioned Tuzla and Srebrenica. I also mentioned Vitez, which, although it was not one of the original safe areas, is still to some extent under siege. I mentioned Mostar, too. None of those is exactly the same as Sarajevo, and that is why what the French and British are trying to achieve in New York is for the Secretary-General to provide specific plans for the relief of each of those places.

Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend will have noticed a certain unease in the House about the Russian operation involving Tuzla. Of course everyone will welcome the reopening of the airport, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Russian forces in Bosnia are working directly under the United Nations, and that the UN command would have known about the initiative on Tuzla before the Russians entered into it?

Mr. Hurd: I mentioned the plans that Mr. Akashi and General Rose, on behalf of the UN, have already made for the relief of Tuzla, and I mentioned the need to mesh those in with whatever agreement may have been reached in Moscow in the past few hours. Clearly that will mean a UN operation, and the co-operation of the Serbs and of the Bosnian Muslims will be needed if the airport is to be opened.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that some of us are profoundly uneasy about what has happened? Is he saying that, whatever President Yeltsin has said, the Russian Parliament and the Russian military have agreed to all that? We are also uneasy because the Greek Foreign Minister has said that what happened was unnecessary. It seems to some of us that those who know most about the subject are the most concerned and uneasy.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's question, like the question asked by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), would have been apposite if the Russians had criticised what was done. Those two questions seem to have been produced by autopilot; the situation is not as those who asked them expected.
The Russians have made it clear—Mr. Churkin made it clear to me on the telephone and then publicly—that, if it


turned out as it did turn out and the no-fly zone had been violated by a unit of fixed-wing aircraft, those who launched that unit had to accept the consequences. That is exactly our point of view. I spent a long time with the Greek Foreign Minister on that subject yesterday, and I do not think that, at the end of the day, he disputed the conclusions of NATO.

Mr. Harold Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent decision of the Russian Government to send 800 troops to Bosnia marked a major triumph for British diplomacy during the Prime Minister's recent visit to Moscow? Will he assure the House that, in the current dangerous and escalating circumstances, any further initiatives in Bosnia will be carefully co-ordinated with the Russian Government?

Mr. Hurd: The Prime Minister urged the Russians in Moscow two weeks ago to do their utmost to influence the Serbs. The Russians told him on that occasion that they were willing to send troops. I do not agree with every statement of Russian foreign policy. I discussed that in Moscow recently with Mr. Kozyrev and with Mr. Grachev, the Defence Minister. When one considers what the Russians have said and done in respect of Bosnia in the past few weeks, I believe that it is positive and that it justifies our keeping in close touch with them, as we are doing.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does not it seem strange that the Foreign Secretary, even at this stage, cannot tell us where the planes came from and who was responsible for them, especially taking into account the fact that the AWACS planes are capable of spotting almost anything on the ground? Is it not a case of diplomatic blindness? If mistakes may be made at that level with all the technology and equipment at hand, if the war begins to escalate, what may happen if we become more deeply embroiled in the war?

Mr. Hurd: That seems to be an autopilot question, which seems to stem from the proposition that there was a great deal of doubt. Those Galeb planes were identified bombing a factory in the Croatian part of Bosnia. Therefore, before they started bombing, they were quite clearly infringing the no-fly zone. The Security Council authorised that no-fly zone and authorised member states to enforce it, and that is what was done.

Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the Yugoslav aircraft industry has produced more than 150 of those Galeb aircraft, that many are still operating and that we do not know quite where they are operating, it is important that NATO has good intelligence about who is operating them? Bearing in mind that infringement of the no-fly zone, would he consider further restrictions of air movement of aircraft from the different warring factions over the former Yugoslavia?

Mr. Hurd: There is no doubt in anybody's mind that the planes were operating in the Serb cause. Whether they originated from a part of Croatia occupied by Serbs, or from Serbia, or from a part of Bosnia occupied by Serbs, is an interesting but secondary matter, in view of what they were doing and of the rules of international law.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Is not the key point the fact that, in the past two months, we have seen more progress than in the previous two years in bringing an end to a conflict which has already claimed almost 200,000 lives and created millions of refugees? Looking ahead to the wider peace process, which the Foreign Secretary mentioned, will he reconfirm that the Government's position is still not to recognise the results of ethnic cleansing or any changes of borders which are brought about by force?

Mr. Hurd: It is clear—I think that it is common ground to everybody, even the Bosnian Serbs—that a negotiated settlement must start with a substantial Bosnian Serb withdrawal, from perhaps up to about a quarter of the land which they now occupy. That is what David Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg accomplished on HMS Invincible and since. The Americans are carrying that forward, to see whether they can proceed to that position by an agreement between the Croats and Muslims. If they can, well and good.
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right: the Serbs cannot expect to hold on, by force of occupation, to all the land that they occupy at present.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the demonstration of resolution on the part of the United Nations and NATO is thoroughly to be welcomed? Does he also agree that the positive steps forward to which he referred are a direct result of, and thoroughly vindicate, our recent decision to pursue violations of UN resolutions in Bosnia with greater vigour?

Mr. Hurd: Various things have come together for good. Undoubtedly, the NATO decision was part of that. Undoubtedly, the leadership of General Rose on the ground is part of that. Undoubtedly, the recent Russian action is part of that. The much more intensive American diplomatic action is very welcome, because it shows all concerned that the Americans are not hanging back. Like the Europeans, they believe that, at the end of this, there must be a negotiated peace, because there cannot be a military victory for anyone.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what representations the Prime Minister has made to President Clinton about the involvement of United States ground forces in helping the humanitarian effort and a peace settlement for Bosnia? Can he give an assurance that we have made it clear to the United States that any future action by US military aircraft must be strictly in accordance with the decisions of the Security Council of the United Nations, and that there cannot be any unilateral assistance on one side or the other in this civil war?

Mr. Hurd: That is the whole basis on which the Americans have been operating, and on which the two F16s operated yesterday.
As to the presence of American ground troops, President Clinton made it clear last year that the United States would be willing to help with troops on the ground once and if there were an agreed settlement which all the warring parties were implementing. That stage has not been reached.
I have told the House about the agreement to rebuild civilian services in Sarajevo, which the President and my right hon. Friend have reached. Obviously, that will


involve the active American participation of experts in rebuilding the city, and that is a forward step which the House will welcome.

Dr. Liam Fox: What my right hon. Friend said about Greece will be widely welcomed. Can he confirm that he will do everything in his power to persuade the Greeks to back away from a confrontation with Macedonia—a confrontation which would only aggravate the conflict in the Balkans?

Mr. Hurd: As I said, the Greeks have genuine anxieties —if one goes there and listens to Greeks of many different political persuasions, one understands that. They believe that the integrity of Greece is threatened by the constitution, the flag, the name and so on of this small state to their north. I do not agree with that, and Greece's other partners do not agree with that, but we must reckon with that fact.
What needs to happen is the withdrawal of these measures—which are illegal and will prove very expensive for Greece, as well as for the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia—and continued discussion under the auspices and chairmanship of Mr. Cyrus Vance to resolve these questions and issues between Greece and her northern neighbour.

Mr. John Home Robertson: In view of the serious situation in Bosnia that the Secretary of State has described, how can he justify the redeployment of British UNPROFOR troops away from central Bosnia to support the action in Sarajevo? Will the British Government now respond positively to the request from the United Nations commanders on the ground, including General Rose, for the deployment of extra British UNPROFOR troops?

Mr. Hurd: The Coldstreams were redeployed in Sarajevo because that is what General Rose wanted, and they have done an invaluable job there. It is for the United Nations to redeploy forces under its control. In this case, we readily agreed that, in the circumstances of last week, the Coldstreams were needed in Sarajevo.
It would be excellent if other countries came forward with troops, which could increase the resources available to UNPROFOR and General Rose. We have provided, and are willing to provide, extra specialist help as he requires it. When one is thinking of substantial military units, we believe that the call should go principally to those who, unlike the French, ourselves and one or two other countries, are not responding substantially already.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the action might put our aid workers and troops in more danger? Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the recent history of Russia, which shows that President Yeltsin might not be in total control in the near future? Might not the action lead to further rises in the nationalism that is worrying everyone so much? Should not the American President at least commit troops and aid workers to face the same dangers as he expects those of other countries to face?

Mr. Hurd: The American President has made his position clear. Obviously, the greater the American involvement on the ground as well as in the air and in diplomacy, the more America's allies will be pleased. Of

course, the hon. Lady is right to say that there is a risk. If our aid workers and troops wanted to avoid risk, they would stay at home.

Mrs. Mahon: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady cannot buck that point. What Government must do—this puts us in a different position from Opposition politicians—is weigh the risks. We have the power to put the lives of service men and aid workers at risk, and we should use that power only when we are clear that the likely benefits outweigh the risks. We are so clear at present.

Mr. George Foulkes: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), does the Foreign Secretary agree that the incident underlines the importance of intensifying the effort to find a peaceful, and, above all, stable, long-term solution? What mechanism does the right hon. Gentleman consider to be the most appropriate to try to find such a solution, and what role does he see in the longer term for Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg?

Mr. Hurd: The role that the UN and the European Union have given David Owen and Thorvald Stoltenberg remains as it is. When a negotiated agreement is eventually built brick by brick, their names and proposals will be a part of that building—I do not doubt that.
I have reported on what the Americans are attempting to do, and the House knows what the Russians are attempting to do. The European Union will meet to discuss the matters again next Monday. There is no doubt that the efforts of all those I mentioned are now moving together in a way that was not always true in the past. If we can continue that impetus, we may be able to continue the progress.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Given that the recent and determined UN action must already have had the wonderful effect of saving many innocent lives in Sarajevo, does the Foreign Secretary now accept that equally determined action two years ago would have saved the lives of many thousands of innocent people in the former Yugoslavia? Does he now accept the ancient lesson of history that appeasement can never be supported and can never be successful?

Mr. Hurd: We have been saving lives in central Bosnia month after month. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the arms embargo. I believe that if the embargo had been lifted, the war, instead of dying down, would have blazed up, and perhaps spread to other countries. I do not believe that that would have been a remedy.
If the hon. Gentleman was thinking of a massive armed intervention on the ground, he should be aware of what that might have led to. If he believes that action from the air could have produced a peace settlement, he is wrong. Action from the air can produce certain clear results, including the defence of UNPROFOR, maintaining the no-fly zone and getting heavier weapons removed from Sarajevo.
We carefully worked out those things. We measured the risk against the benefits, and we in NATO decided to take the risk in those areas. To suppose in a lordly sort of way that there were options for the use of force a long time ago


which could have saved lives, rather than killed more people, is to assume something that is far from being proven.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: While the opening of Tuzla airport will be important, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be even more useful to open up the northern route into Tuzla in north central Bosnia? That is the spur from Zupanja to Tuzla which leaves the Zagreb-Belgrade highway.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in a couple of weeks, a pan-European convoy with large contingents from Britain will try to get through to Tuzla along that route? The Bosnians in Tuzla do not understand why that route—which is non-mountainous, unlike the southern route—has not been opened for aid convoys. Will the Foreign Secretary look at that and undertake that either himself or one of his hon. Friends will have talks with the Workers Aid for Bosnia group which is forming a convoy in the near future?

Mr. Hurd: It is essential that the convoy should proceed in close contact with the UN and the ODA. Most of the relief that is getting into Tuzla has come by road through Serb-held lands. We believe that the quantity is inadequate. That is why it is important to open the airport.

Mr. John McAllion: United Nations officials have confirmed that, since last October, there have been more than 1,000 violations of the no-fly zone by Serbian, Croatian and Muslim aircraft. Will the Foreign Secretary explain clearly to the House why this violation provoked a NATO attack? Was it because either NATO or the United Nations had confirmation that the planes were involved in a bombing attack, or because it was the first occasion on which more than one fixed-wing aircraft violated the no-fly zone?

Mr. Hurd: The second.

Ms Kate Hoey: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), which the Foreign Secretary did not answer exactly in his normal manner, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Sarajevo is still under siege? It is important that that point gets across. It comes across that somehow Sarajevo has been saved. While I welcome what has happened there, it is clear that people cannot leave that city, and they are under siege. What measures will be taken to improve the position?

Mr. Hurd: The Bosnian Government have not encouraged people to leave Sarajevo. It is partly under

siege. There is an airlift. Some supplies get in, but not enough. The civilian life of the city is still to a large extent paralysed. That is why we, with the French and the US, have urged the UN to appoint a commissioner to work alongside General Rose and Mr. Akashi to restore civilian life. That is why the Anglo-American agreement that I have just announced takes the form it does.
We are not talking just about Sarajevo: other places are under siege. Mostar has been under siege by the Croats. Vitez has been under siege by the Bosnian Muslims. Each is a different area, with different participants, difference hindrances. Therefore, different remedies are needed. That is what is being worked out.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West. In one of his responses, the Foreign Secretary said that the Serbs should not be allowed to hold on to "all" of the land that they had gained by aggression. Why did he say "all" and not "any"? If borders are to be violated as they have been, what assurances can he give the people of Albania following recent violations of the border there by the Serbians?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman speaks as if we were dealing with a simple invasion of Bosnia by the Serbs. Serbs live in Bosnia. We are talking about what is the fair share to be retained by Bosnian Serbs so that they continue to live in their country. That is the question.
The answer worked out is that the Bosnian Serbs need to withdraw from about one quarter of the land which they have seized. Bosnian Muslims should have approximately one third, and that is what they have agreed. The Bosnian Croats should have 17.5 per cent. Those are not absolute figures; they are part of the negotiations now taking place. What is at issue is not so much the total proportions as the quality and nature of the land—which towns, which villages—that should be in each category.

Mr. John Hutton: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the six attacking Bosnian aircraft were first identified by NATO command only during the attack on Novi Travnik or shortly thereafter? If that is not so, is not it a matter of serious concern that the attacks were allowed to take place? Given that the six aircraft were engaged after the bombing mission on Novi Travnik, why on earth was it necessary to give the aircraft two separate warnings?

Mr. Hurd: Because that is the agreed procedure, to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. I believe that the majority of the House would feel that the operation was remarkably effective and successful.

Lloyd's Membership

Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in your power to rule that Members of this House comply with the Register of Members' Interests in respect of declaring their membership of syndicates in Lloyds? If they do not, they are defying the will of the House.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps I can be helpful to the House. The matter was referred to yesterday. It may be helpful if I draw attention lo the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which includes the words:
to consider any proposals made by Members or others as to the form and content of the register and to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests.
The hon. Gentleman should pose his questions to the Select Committee. In view of that Committee's responsibility, I wish to make it clear that I shall entertain no further points on the subject.

Elimination of Poverty in Retirement

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities and health authorities to monitor the condition of their retired population, to eliminate standing charges on gas, electricity and water, to exempt pensioners from licence charges and telephone rental, to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes, to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings, and to appoint a Minister with responsibility for retired people.
We are in the throes of a debate on the future of the welfare state. Day by day, various Ministers pluck out of the air yet more and new statistics to claim that this country can no longer afford universal benefits or a universal welfare state. But, since 1979, that very same Government have presided over an economic strategy in which the richest fifth of the population has increased its share of national income from 35 to 43 per cent., while the share of the poorest fifth has dropped to a mere 6 per cent. of national income—from 10 per cent. in 1979, even then an inadequate figure. In Britain, welfare spending as a proportion of both national income and Government expenditure is considerably and significantly lower than in other European countries.
Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) let the cat out of the bag. He was finally brought to the Dispatch Box to admit that, since 1979, average earnings in this country have risen by 35 per cent., and the average state old-age pension has risen by 3.2 per cent. Yet the same Minister claimed that pensioners' average income has risen by 39 per cent. during that period.
What the Minister fails to discuss or admit is that the supposed 39 per cent. increase in the average income of pensioners hides a multitude of sins. It disregards the fact that many older pensioners, particularly older women pensioners, have no access to occupational pension schemes, savings or investments. They are not the people who read the Financial Times to see how their shares are going: they are the people who wonder how they will be able to pay their gas or electricity bills at the end of each quarter.
The use of global average figures is a dangerous trend. Groups that we used to refer to as on the lunatic right and now just think of as completely loopy—such as the No Turning Back group and the Adam Smith Institute—seem to be trying to join in the debate.
The No Turning Back group proposes the abolition of the state earnings-related pension scheme and offers the opt-out of state pensions in return for bribery in the form of national insurance payments. The same Government now pay more and more money into the national insurance fund as a means of promoting the private pension industry. I believe that the Government's pension strategy is largely about promoting the private pension industry, at the expense of the welfare state and the principles of a state scheme.
Yesterday, the Adam Smith Institute came out in its true colours and went even further: it proposed the wholesale abolition of the welfare state. Some Conservative Members propose the destruction of the welfare state in its entirety. The Secretary of State claims that he is the great defender of the welfare state, but, under questioning, he admits that, if the Government stay in office until the end of the


century, the state old-age pension will be reduced to a mere 10 per cent. of average earnings, from a high of 26 per cent. when the last Labour Government left office. Inadequate though it was, the pension then was considerably better than it is now.
This is not the first time that I have introduced such a Bill. In fact, it is the 11 th time that I have introduced the same or a similar Bill designed to set out a comprehensive programme to improve the lot of the elderly in this country. The way in which the elderly are treated is a measure of a society's civilisation. The way that we in this country treat our elderly population is a standing disgrace. Too many of them live in poverty, too many die of hypothermia and too many live in fear of their gas, electricity and telephone bills, and having to pay for their television licence.
The Bill is a comprehensive measure. It would require the appointment of a Minister to co-ordinate all aspects of policies for the elderly. They are concerned not simply about pensions, but about education, recreation, culture and a variety of subjects, including housing.
It would also require both local authorities and local health authorities to produce an annual report explaining what they do for their elderly population, what services they provide, how they provide them, what the life expectancy is, and how effective the services are, because too many housebound, bedridden elderly people are suffering from enormous cuts in social services expenditure. They are not in a position to lobby, either here or at town halls. They are the victims of Government spending cuts in respect of local health authorities and local councils.
In addition, value added tax is a wholly regressive form of taxation. The compensation measures proposed by the Government, which they plan to introduce in April, are wholly inadequate. They take no account of the regional differences in fuel bills. Fuel bills tend to be higher where it is colder. Scottish bills tend to be higher than English bills, and so forth.
Likewise, the standing charges for gas, electricity and water, the telephone rental and the television licence fee are like another poll tax for low-income households. In the Bill, I propose that the vast profits being made by the privatised gas, electricity and water companies should instead be put to good use by being channelled into abolishing the standing charges for pensioner households, both to save them money and to protect them from having supplies being cut off.
The right to be able to get about is crucial. In London, we are very proud of the travel permit scheme for pensioners. Its introduction was a great achievement by the Labour-controlled Greater London council, and it has been a mighty struggle to maintain it. Similar schemes have been introduced in many other cities. I believe, however,

that it should be extended to the whole country. If the Republic of Ireland can provide a national travel scheme for its retired people, why can this country not do it?
I come now to the crucial part of the Bill. Too many elderly people live in great poverty. Too many are unable to make ends meet. Too many have no savings, and those who have them find that the savings are often eaten up because of the rules on the use of savings before housing benefit and the like are paid.
I therefore propose that the first thing to be done is the recalculation of the state old-age pension to restore the link that was so cruelly and brutally broken in 1980. Until 1975, the basis of the calculation of the pension each April was the link between it and average earnings. The basis is now the average price rise, which means that, as a proportion of average earnings, the state old-age pension has fallen and fallen. As I said earlier, it is due to fall to a mere 10 per cent.
I propose that the link be restored, and that we aim to be able to pay a state old-age pension of half average earnings. It could be achieved, although it would require considerable expenditure, and it would bring us somewhere near the European average in countries where they are trying to protect and look after their elderly.
Those who campaigned a century ago for the principle of a welfare state and for a state old-age pension to banish for ever the fear of the workhouse and of poverty in old age would be appalled if they could have foreseen that, in 1994, we would live in a society which, having achieved a universal welfare state, was prepared to preside over its destruction in favour of greed and private profit.
My Bill seeks to do something different. It seeks to recognise that the richest in the country have done very well over the past 15 years. We spend far too much money on arms; we could be spending it on socially useful things. We are allowing too many hospitals and social services to be destroyed. The Bill goes some way towards redressing the balance, and eliminating once and for all the fear and misery of poverty in retirement.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Don Dixon, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Llew Smith, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Bob Cryer.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities and health authorities to monitor the condition of their retired population, to eliminate standing charges on gas, electricity and water, to exempt pensioners from licence charges and telephone rental, to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes, to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings, and to appoint a Minister with responsibility for retired people: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 March, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

Orders of the Day — Opposition Day

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Overseas Aid

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Sir David Steel: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the high proportion of British aid that is tied to the purchase of British goods and services; notes the remarkable coincidence between defence-related contracts and the allocation of British aid; further notes that many of the companies who have benefited from such deals are major donors to the Conservative Party; believes that allegations relating to the Pergau Dam affair have seriously undermined the credibility of the British aid programme; condemns the past conduct of Her Majesty's Government in relation to this matter; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to restore the public's confidence in British aid by setting a timetable for achieving the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. GNP, reducing the proportion of tied aid and increasing the proportion which is spent on the basic human needs of the poorest people.
In opening the debate, I intend to advance five propositions: first, that the Pergau dam project was a costly mistake to which the Government should never have committed taxpayers' money; secondly, that the only possible explanation for that error was the Government's eagerness to lubricate the trade channels with Malaysia and especially the arms trade; thirdly, that, as in the case with arms to Iraq, the Government proclaimed one policy to Parliament and the public, but, in reality, pursued another; fourthly, that there has been an unhealthy use of the overseas aid programme generally to assist arms sales around the world; and, fifthly, that there has been an equally unhealthy dominance in the receipt of the aid and trade provision by firms that are donors to the Conservative party. In conclusion, I shall propose changes in policy to ensure that those wholly unacceptable happenings do not recur.
I begin, therefore, with the decision to support the Pergau dam project. In 1987, which was a year before the Government got committed by the then Prime Minister to supporting that project, the World bank's power sector had advised against that hydro-electric project and suggested instead that Malaysia should concentrate on gas-fired electricity generation until the turn of the century. The Malaysian Government turned down a less expensive tender for such a power station, which, incidentally, British companies were well placed to supply and which would have been far less environmentally damaging.
That was before the then Defence Secretary's now notorious visit to Malaysia in March 1988, when he signed a protocol on arms sales in conjunction with a promise on aid, and before the equally notorious visit by the then Prime Minister. Having got hooked on the project, the Overseas Development Agency sent a team to Malaysia to assess the project. The Public Accounts Committee has described that as the shortest project appraisal ever to come

before it. Nevertheless, the then Prime Minister offered the Malaysian Prime Minister support for the project, conditional on full economic appraisal.
A year later, in February 1990, the ODA concluded that the dam was a "very bad buy" and the Department for Trade and Industry proposed a review of the Malaysian power sector. Nevertheless, the Malaysian Government were determined to proceed and, in February 1991, the then Permanent Secretary to the ODA, Sir Tim Lankester, told Ministers that the proposal, which was not some flea-bite incidental project but the largest single funding ever to be made by our overseas aid programme, was
unequivocally a bad one in economic terms
and an
abuse of the aid programme".
Sir Tim told our Public Accounts Committee a few weeks ago that he therefore required ministerial orders to go ahead with the payments. Mr. Rais Yatin, who was Foreign Minister of Malaysia at the start of those discussions, has said that the deal was a "gross irregularity".
In its report last year, the National Audit Office drew attention to the history of errors in the project and concluded that the cost to the British taxpayer was £234 million, plus more than £50 million for funding soft loans.
Among the first duties of Parliament are the voting of moneys to Governments and the check on their use. We should be failing in our most fundamental duty if we did not censure the Government for their assent to that expenditure.
That brings me to the question, why? The answer is that, so keen were Ministers to re-establish trade with Malaysia that they set aside a series of normal procedures to enable them to do so. There was, first, the agreement made by George Younger, now Lord Younger of Prestwick, to link an arms sales package with the promise of aid. He says:
a verbal understanding was given by somebody—to link the aid to the defence contract".
The House is entitled to know who that somebody was.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the relationship between British and Malaysian Ministers became unacceptably cosy, and that there are grounds for investigating the basis on which public interest immunity certificates were signed by Ministers against the interests of Mr. Lorrain Osman, who was then in Pentonville prison in London, which, if they had not been signed, might have led to the disclosure of documents that would have enabled Mr. Osman to present his defence in a proper fashion?

Sir David Steel: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that there is a case for looking into that connection. In preparing what is inevitably a wide-ranging speech, I decided not to go down that alley, but it is one well worth exploring and I hope that hon. Members will do so in the debate.
I have a copy of the subsequent memorandum of understanding that was signed by the two Prime Ministers after a meeting from which all officials were excluded. As it is classified as secret, I shall not read any of it to the House. Suffice it to say that it contains some unusual provisions, including the use of concessionary interest rates by private banks to be guaranteed by the Government, rather than the normal export credit guarantee arrangements, the establishment of permanent units in our


Ministry of Defence and in Malaysia to oversee the contracts and the provision of military training, as well as a list of various arms suppliers.
Here I have to be blunt and say that, in the course of batting for Britain, which our former Prime Minister did extremely well, her close circle often seems to have been involved. In this case, Sir Tim Bell, well known as her public relations adviser, is also adviser to the Malaysian Prime Minister and to Tam Sri Armugam, who controls GEC Malaysia, and was heavily involved in some of the contracts under the deal.
Another person who helped broker parts of the deal is Mr. Steve Tipping, a business associate of Mr. Mark Thatcher and, indeed, best man at his wedding. Tim Bell told the The Sunday Times when asked to clarify Tipping's exact role:
What he does for a living is introduce people to each other".
That is lucky for him. It is clear that between them, George Younger, Margaret Thatcher and persons unknown made the deal, which also included an agreement to give Malaysian Airlines a landing slot at Heathrow airport, for which the Treasury had to fork out more than £2 million of public money as compensation to British Airways.
I now turn to the deception of Parliament. According to the Alan Clark school of thought, none of it, including possible payments to middle men or politicians into Swiss bank accounts, is at all untoward in the determined pursuit of British business interests. [Interruption.] Some Conservative Members say, "Hear, hear", but it is not the stated policy of Her Majesty's Government.
I do not want to get hung up on the argument about whether it was illegal, but it was certainly wholly against the ODA's declared policy objectives and the published guidelines of the aid and trade provision which specifically exclude as eligible "equipment for military purposes".

Mr. James Paice: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the principal responsibility of the British Government, of any persuasion, must be to look after British interests first? In that context, is it not quite clear, after the events of Thursday and Friday onwards Concerning the Malaysian trade embargo against Britain, that countless thousands of British jobs are at risk? Would not the right hon. Gentleman be doing Britain more good, and doing more for British jobs by calming the situation down rather than stoking the fire, which he is actively doing?

Sir David Steel: I will come on to my suggestions about the best way of pursuing British interests towards the end of my speech. But if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that deception, backhanders or anything of that kind should be part of British policy, let us have that stated as British policy. What I am complaining about is that the policy pursued in this case was different from the public policy that was declared to us in Parliament. More than that, Ministers constantly denied any link between arms supplies and aid in several answers to parliamentary questions. I shall give two examples. In November 1989, the then Prime Minister told the House:
Overseas aid is frequently used to finance civil engineering contracts … It is not used in connection with sales of military equipment."—[Official Report, 14 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 121.]
That was already untrue by the time she said it.
In December 1991, the Minister for Overseas Development, the then Mrs. Chalker, told the House:
There is no question of linking aid and arms 'deals"'.—[Official Report, 20 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 331.]
But there was a question, and she had already been overruled in that instance.
The columns of Hansard are littered with such denials. As late as 26 January this year, when asked to confirm or deny the specific allegation that aid to Pergau was linked to arms sales, the Prime Minister wrote in a letter to me that the
Memorandum of Understanding did not cover aid.
I cannot accuse the Prime Minister of telling me a lie, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order, and he is technically correct. It is not there. But he and other Ministers have been miserly with their veracity, right up to Sunday, when the Foreign Secretary, in a phrase that ranks alongside "economical with the truth", told us that the two had for a time become entangled.
One of my conclusions is that, as in the arms to Iraq fiasco, the Government have become not only sloppy in their use of power but cavalier in their treatment of the House, and have sought to mislead us by concealing the truth until finally found out.

Mr. David Harris: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that some of us who are on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs are in a difficult position. Indeed, I have just come from the Foreign Office, where I was looking through some of the papers. I ask him to accept that all these points will be looked into carefully by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I think that he will perhaps want to reconsider some of the points that he makes when the whole story is known. I hope very much that that is so.

Sir David Steel: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked carefully at all the papers relating to this matter and am choosing my words extremely carefully. I believe that the House was misled in the parliamentary answers that were given, because it is undeniable that aid—

Mr. Harris: Has the right hon. Gentleman read it?

Sir David Steel: I have read the memorandum of understanding. Of course there is no reference to it, but if the hon. Gentleman had been following me closely, he would have heard that George Younger, as he then was, made it quite clear that a verbal commitment was given by somebody to promise the aid. I am asking the question that I hope the hon. Member will ask as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs: Who was that person? I invite him to ask that question.
My fourth proposition is that the Pergau dam affair illustrates something that has gone wrong with our aid and trade provision. There has been a growing correlation between increased aid programmes to other countries and arms sales contracts. Malaysia is not a poor country; its gross national product per capita is $2,500. The amount spent on the Pergau dam project alone, every single year from now through to 2000, exceeds what we gave last year to the whole of Somalia or Ethiopia, each of whose gross national product per head is only just over $100.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the kind of aid that is


given to Somalia will not be under the aid and trade provision and therefore cannot be truly classified in the same way as the aid given on the Pergau dam?

Sir David Steel: I accept that it comes out of a different part of the ODA, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that the total, both the trade and aid provision and the ordinary aid programme, amounts to our overseas aid budget. They are together. I shall talk in a moment about the inadequacy of the total packages. Obviously, money spent on one is not available for the other; that is the point that I am making.
Even further removed from poverty is Oman, with a gross national product per capita of over $6,000—higher than the figure in Portugal, a European Community aid-giving country. Its aid from Britain has doubled during the lifetime of the present Government, and it currently ranks third in the list of purchasers of arms from Britain. For 1994, defence spending is planned to occupy 30 per cent. of Oman's national budget. Thailand and Jordan are other better-off countries with increasing aid receipts and growing arms purchases from Britain.
Most offensive of all, however, are the sales and aid programmes for undesirable regimes. Let us take Ecuador, for example. In comparison with neighbouring Colombia and El Salvador—which share the same level of poverty —Ecuador receives growing British aid. It currently amounts to 0.33p per head, as against 0.07p and 0.04p in the other two countries. The difference is that Ecuadlor is the fifth largest purchaser of British arms. In 1991, the Ecuadorian human rights commission registered 23 cases of unlawful killing and 38 of torture.
Even more striking is the case of Indonesia, where our aid programme has quadrupled under the present Government. It has become the fourth largest purchaser of British armaments. Since 1975, when Indonesia invaded its neighbour East Timor, a third of the population—some 200,000 people—has been killed. In 1991, the army massacred 100 civilians at a funeral in the East Timor capital. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has condemned Indonesia. Last year's Amnesty International report lists more than 180 prisoners of conscience, and states:
Torture and ill treatment of political detainees, peaceful demonstrations and criminal suspects were common and resulted in some deaths. Government forces extrajudicially executed scores of alleged supporters of independence in Aceh and East Timor.
Some countries, such as Belgium, have suspended their aid to Indonesia; others, such as the United States, have banned arms sales. Britain has increased both. I believe that most people in this country find that wholly unacceptable, and would prefer us not to sell arms to unsavoury regimes—and certainly not to lubricate those sales by using parts of our limited aid budget.
I agree with what Lady Chalker, the Minister for Overseas Development, said in a lecture a couple of years ago:
excessive military expenditure can create political and military insecurity. It can also seriously damage development by pre-empting resources.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the public policy of a political party, and what a party says when it goes overseas. Will he confirm that his own party was quick to congratulate the new Liberal Canadian Government on their economic policies, when they had just announced the cancellation of a helicopter project which would have been

very expensive for the Canadian taxpayer? The leader of the right hon. Gentleman's party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), then told the local press that he had dispatched the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Canadian Government to reinstate the project.

Sir David Steel: With great respect, that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that I have indeed discussed the matter with Canadian Ministers. It is evident from the Canadian Liberal election programme, which is clearly set out, that it was designed to reduce the defence budget and increase the aid budget. I have been trying to argue that case here.
In a recent Foreign Office publication, the Government said that they attempted to promote good government through their aid programme. It seems highly selective. In the foreword, the Foreign Secretary writes:
The more open a society is, the more transparent the decisions of government, the more difficult it is to hide corruption and the abuse of human rights.
Those are fine words, but tell that to the Malaysians and the Indonesians!
My fifth observation relates to the connection between firms that benefit from the aid and trade provision, and donations to the Conservative party and its allied organisations. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) should listen to what I am going to say before intervening.
The fact is that companies linked by such donations have been the main beneficiaries of the aid and trade provision—to the tune of 42 per cent.—since the Government came to power. They include Cementation International—owned by Trafalgar House—Balfour Beatty, GEC, AMEC International, Biwater and Davy; not to mention the walk-on part of our old friend the privatised British Airways.
I am not alleging that there is anything as corrupt as a direct link between those companies' donations to the party in government and their receipt of aid and trade provision from the Government: perish the thought. It is just that the two have, in a somewhat unseemly manner, "become entangled".

Mr. Simon Burns: May I return to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier point? He mentioned both GEC and Malaysia. No doubt he knows quite a bit about my constituency from his previous role as leader of the Liberal party; he will know that it contains four GEC companies, which employ people who have been hard hit by defence-related redundancies. Over the past week, those workers have become extremely nervous and concerned about the threat of trade with Malaysia, where they are involved in non-military contracts such as the airport project.
What would the right hon. Gentleman do if redundancies were announced in Chelmsford as a result of pathetic, naive debates of this kind? Will he consider reading an article in The Times by Peter Riddell, which puts the whole issue into perspective?

Sir David Steel: If any redundancies were declared in Chelmsford, I would say that the hon. Gentleman should look to his own Government, who got into this mess in the first place—unless he is seeking to defend the actions that I have described; I am not sure whether he is or not.
What are we going to do about all this? Let me take the last point first. Over the years, the House has on several occasions dodged the issue of the funding of political parties. I believe that such corporate donations should be outlawed. I am not in favour of state grants for political parties, but I believe that there is a case for examining a scheme whereby each individual citizen was allowed to donate a small fixed amount from his or her tax bill—say £50—to the party of his or her choice. That would provide an element of public subsidy for democracy, but according to the individual's choice—leaving space for the political parties to go out and get it.
That is my first proposal for a change in policy. My second is that we should legislate, as the United States Congress has done, against arms sales to regimes with appalling human rights records. I do not believe that the American action is foolproof, but at least it is a start in the right direction.
Thirdly, I am well aware of the argument—which appears to be supported by some Conservative Members —that, if we do not engage in arms trade sweeteners, payments to middle men or bribery, to put it crudely, others may nip in and secure the contracts. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is well aware of that, and has established a working party on illicit payments.

Mr. Burns: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand.

Sir David Steel: I am trying to tell the hon. Member for Chelmsford something. For more than two years, the working party has been battling against the indifference of the British and Japanese participants. I want an assurance from the Government that they will take the issue seriously, and help the OECD to reach an internationally accepted code of behaviour. In the meantime, we should look at the American legislation, which is punitive to the extent of imposing $2 million fines and five years in gaol for corrupt payments.

Mr. Tim Renton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I think that he must agree that he is misinforming the House about that OECD examination. My understanding is that it is a proposition put forward by the United States, because of the stringency of its domestic law, but it is being discussed, debated and in some degree opposed, not only by Britain and by Japan, but by all our continental European neighbours, because they simply do not think that it is pertinent to their legislation. It is totally unfair, therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman, as it were, to put Britain alone in dock in that context.

Sir David Steel: I did not put Britain alone in the dock. I said simply that my information was that Britain and Japan had been dragging their feet in that working party, which has been going on, not for two months, but for two years. If the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is suggesting that some of our European Community partners are also dragging their feet, I find that equally deplorable. I am saying that it is no good advancing the argument that if we do not behave badly someone

elsewhere will, and therefore we might as well behave badly, which appears to be the case that Mr. Alan Clark and others have advanced.
We all know that our overseas aid budget, far from moving towards the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product, has been moving disgracefully away from it. Moreover, a large chunk has had to be devoted to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, leaving a smaller proportion of the diminished budget for the desperately poor in our world. It is time that the overall budget was progressively increased towards our UN commitment and that the share-out within it was reordered to help the poorer countries. Perhaps we could be given details of the rethinking that has already taken place in the Overseas Development Administration on that last point.
Finally, I believe, as did our Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, that the aid and trade provision should be removed from the ODA and transferred wholly to the Department of Trade and Industry. There is everything to be said, of course, for assisting our industries to obtain contracts—that is not at issue—but that is not one of the declared aims of the ODA and, in the light of this sad episode, it should become solely that of the DTI.

Mr. Graham Riddick: rose—

Sir David Steel: No; I am concluding now.
The British are generous people and the response to the overseas development charities by the public proves that to be so. They have been appalled that their tax revenues, instead of going to the poor and the hungry, have been so misused in that way. The Government stand condemned and the scandal must never be allowed to happen again.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
 'strongly supports the Government's substantial aid programme aimed at sustainable economic and social development, particularly in the poorest countries, which draws on the skills and excellence of British institutions, companies and nongovernmental organisations, and creates significant jobs and wealth in the United Kingdom.'.
I wonder, having listened to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), whether we are debating the same aid programme. I welcome the opportunity to remind him of the basic purpose of our aid programme and of the realities of the world. I doubt whether the dedicated people working in the field to implement our aid programme in a number of countries will take much encouragement from having listened to the right hon. Gentleman. I quote from the Foreign Office's 1993 departmental report,
 "The purpose of our overseas aid for developing countries is to promote sustainable economic and social development and good government in order to reduce poverty, suffering and deprivation and to improve the quality of life for poor people.
The best advertisement for increasing our aid programme is its effectiveness. Since 1987–88, we have increased the amount of aid that we give to developing countries by 10 per cent. in real terms. We have the sixth largest aid programme in the world. We remain committed to the 0.7 per cent. aid/gross national product target, but, like many other donors, we cannot set a timetable for reaching it. Levels of aid must take account of our economic circumstances. Those are realities which


confront other donors. Some, such as Germany, have frozen their aid. Others—for example, Canada, Italy and Finland—have cut theirs. Our programme, meanwhile, continues to grow.
However, it is not just a question of how much money donors provide. The results of that aid are what count—how well the aid works. That is why the quality and effectiveness of aid are so important. We would not have provided more resources if we were not convinced that we would put them to good use in the interests of the recipient countries and of British taxpayers.

Mr. Tony Worthington: What criticisms were expressed in what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said last week to the British Government about the quality of our aid?

Mr. Goodlad: I was coming to that. The development assistance committee of the OECD has just completed a review of the United Kingdom aid programme, while the hon. Gentleman was on his travels in Africa. It is still in business—unlike, I regret to say, the hon. Gentleman, who has been shamefully let down by his own Front Bench —a case of serious injustice.

Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Minister speaks about injustice to Front Benchers, does he agree that the biggest injustice this afternoon is that he should be put up to answer for the Government in this miserable situation?

Mr. Goodlad: On the contrary, I regard it as an honour and a privilege.
The development assistance committee of the OECD has just said:
The United Kingdom has a highly concessional, well organised bilateral programme based on substantial national expertise and largely oriented towards the poorest developing countries.
That conclusion from an internationally respected organisation hardly squares with the Opposition motion, but I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House's attention to it.
Far from being a misuse of funds, the aid programme is effective because it is well targeted. It is well targeted in where we spend our aid—on the poorest countries, especially in Africa and Asia. Seven of the 10 biggest recipients of our bilateral aid in 1992–93 were poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The other three were populous and poor countries in Asia—India, Bangladesh and China. It is also well targeted on clearly defined objectives. They were set out clearly in the speech of my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development at Chatham House last year. The aim is long-term, sustainable development.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things that seem to have annoyed the Malaysian Government is the fact that commentators in the House and outside seem to be saying that they should not play a part in deciding where aid should be spent and that they do not have the ability to know where that is best used? Is not that appalling? Should not the British Government always listen to the Government of the country involved about where they feel that aid is best applied?

Mr. Goodlad: I think that my hon. Friend makes a very important point. We in government always listen, but I am quite used to patronising, condescending and neo-colonialist attitudes from Opposition Members.
What are the areas on which we spend our aid programme? Let us move away from the hysteria and allegations of recent weeks and take a cool look at what we are trying to achieve. We support economic liberalisation. Sustainable development needs sound economic policies, which encourage investment, give incentives to producers and improve the efficiency of public services. We promote the productive capacity of developing countries, improving management skills, encouraging more effective public expenditure programmes. We promote good government to ensure sound development policies, to improve legitimacy and accountability, to extend popular participation in the development process and to promote respect for human rights and the rule of law.
We are increasingly focusing our programme on the direct reduction of poverty. We promote human development, including better education and health and access to family planning services. We help poorer countries to tackle environmental problems and we have a record second to none in providing speedy and effective humanitarian assistance to the all-too-many communities struck by natural or man-made calamities.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that in 1991 the ODA published a series of reports which were independent evaluations into the use of the aid and trade provision? There were two sets of reports, carried out by academics. One set was for the ODA, and in that severe criticisms were made of ATP in relation to power projects in countries throughout the world. The criticisms of the use of the aid and trade provision were edited out of the set of documents that were published for public consumption, however. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that was the case in 1991 and tell us what Overseas Development Administration practice is now?

Mr. Goodlad: I have not read the documents to which the hon. Lady referred, but we recommend constructive criticism from whichever quarter it comes, even from academics. An aid and trade provision review has just been conducted and a copy of it has been given to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Jim Lester: It may benefit hon. Members to demonstrate the difference between the bilateral aid programme, which my right hon. Friend is describing very well, and the aid and trade provision, which is 9 per cent. of the total bilateral aid budget. The latter is covered by different rules and is designed to assist British companies obtain contracts overseas. The two things are not the same. The criticism of ATP has been published and ATP has been reviewed, which has resulted in tremendous changes in the way in which it operates.

Mr. Goodlad: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I shall talk about the aid and trade provision later.
Anyone can set out a list of objectives. The key is ensuring that funds are spent in pursuit of the objectives. Aid programmes do not stand still. They reflect a changing international agenda. They must respond first and foremost to the needs of recipient countries. The way we give aid —the form it takes, the channels that we use and the


countries that receive it—is under continual review to ensure that it is closely geared to the needs of individual countries.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in addition to using overseas aid to help to alleviate poverty and encourage development, we should link it far more closely to trade, so that we enable British firms to benefit and create more employment in this country? The 9 per cent. figure is far too low and we should increase it significantly.

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right. The aid and trade provision includes the objectives that he described, much as it sticks in the gullets of Opposition Members, especially Labour Members, who introduced the aid and trade provision, but do not like British businesses to be assisted.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The Government often proclaim the principle of promoting good government. Does not that principle also relate to the debate? In an answer to a written question on 10 June 1993, the Under-Secretary of State told me that the Government use their aid programme to improve the quality of government. He said that where standards were not met, for example, where human rights were persistently abused, the Government were prepared to withdraw or reduce their assistance. In view of events in East Timor, does not Indonesia come into that category?

Mr. Goodlad: As I have said, and as the hon. Gentleman has quoted, it is right that good government is included in the criteria that we take into account. I shall deal with East Timor later.
The ODA maintains rigorous economic, technical and environmental criteria to ensure the quality of the programmes and projects that we support with official funds. In particular, we have systems to determine accurately development needs, to design the aid to meet those needs in the most cost-effective ways, to develop ways to monitor performance and to feed the aid management lessons of each project into the design and management of future projects.
Our procedures for safeguarding proper use of aid funds are thorough. We and other donors require competitive tendering for procurement contracts. We continually monitor the implementation of our projects to guard against misuse of funds. We would have no hesitation in withdrawing support from a project where it was clear that aid funds were being improperly used.
We have heard a lot of misguided criticism about aid and trade provision. It is a long-standing part of the aid programme and was started in 1977 by a Labour Government. It enables us to promote development in sectors where British companies have a lot to offer. It is a successful scheme. Nearly £4 billion worth of British exports have been won through projects assisted by the aid and trade provision since the start of the scheme. That has involved more than 270 projects in 50 countries worldwide.
Let us not delude ourselves. Most aid donors have similar programmes. We estimate that all our major European partners have bigger and in some cases substantially bigger programmes than we do, as do the

Japanese. Aid and trade provision was set up in response to moves by other countries to offer tied aid financing in markets in which we competed. Does anyone deny that our exporters should have a level playing field?

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will recognise that I have been among those who have urged the Government to reach their agreed target of honour. While I recognise his arguments on the care with which we conduct our ODA policy, does he accept that we as a nation depend on our export business to raise money? Does he accept that because of the freedom of the press and its frailties, from which we often suffer, firms are being hit in regions of high unemployment, including Northern Ireland?

Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman has advanced an important argument.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is in danger of slightly misstating the origins of ATP? During my time at the Department of Industry, I was in charge of the power plant industry. We faced competition from the Japanese, who were giving aid to obtain power station orders, so we agreed to introduce a system whereby aid was supplied for projects for which construction was due to take place. The aid was intended for a specific power station project and not for ancillary deals—that was never envisaged. Given that the strict intention was that aid should relate to the project in hand, how does the Minister explain support of £234 million of soft loans, plus £46 million of Export Credits Guarantee Department support, making a total of £280 million out of a £308 million British content? That amounted to 90 per cent. of the cost of the project to a country that can pay cash on the nail for £1 billion worth of arms.

Mr. Goodlad: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is loyal to the system that he helped to found. I shall come to the Pergau project later.
I should like to deal with the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale about the group of companies that have benefited from aid and trade provision. I am sure that he will confirm that all companies providing goods and services out of the United Kingdom have been, and are, eligible to apply for ATP. Without including consortium partners and subcontractors, 141 companies have benefited from ATP-supported projects. Large overseas construction projects are very specialised and only a few UK companies have the expertise to act as the prime contractor. ATP is awarded to the recipient Government for a project and not to UK companies. The grant element of an accepted offer of ATP goes to the recipient Government. Of course, ATP support benefits many smaller sub-contractors and suppliers, whose customer is the prime contractor.
The suggestion by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale that there might be some connection between companies that have worked on ATP-funded projects and contributions to the Conservative party is unfair in two respects. It is unfair to the ODA officials who vet those projects and who seek to make no connection between the Conservative party and ATP. It is also unrealistic and unfair to the Governments who receive


ATP. Hon. Members would objectively have to agree that that is a classic case of the smear and innuendo that the Malaysians have found so offensive.

Mr. Julian Brazier: For nine years, I worked for one of this country's largest investors in Malaysia and I believe that my right hon. Friend has shown commendable restraint in his remarks. The truth is that an absolutely nonsensical campaign, whipped up in the media by Opposition voices, has done incalculable damage to our trading relations with an important trading partner.

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend speaks not only from knowledge but with ample justification from the heart.

Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend see the irony in the fact that, when unemployment rises, the Opposition parties pontificate and mouth platitudes about how disgraceful it is, but, when the Government are working to help British companies to win exports and to safeguard and create jobs, the antics of those parties destroy exports and jobs? They then have the nerve to complain about the unemployment that results from their disgraceful behaviour.

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition parties are quite unashamed of doing what he describes.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I have a particular constituency interest in the aid and trade provision and the benefit that has arisen from it. Biwaters operates from Clay Cross in my constituency and was involved in the contract to provide rural water supplies in Malaysia. A contract for the refurbishment of the water supply, worth £1.5 billion, was ready to be signed but has now been lost. It has been lost not because we have a free press, but because of the link between arms and aid. The Government began something that might have benefited trade, but their action has resulted in my constituents facing unemployment.

Mr. Goodlad: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is living in a complete fantasy world and is compounding the problems that he rightly highlights. The atmosphere of innuendo has contributed to the unfortunate unemployment in his constituency and I hope that his constituents will notice his involvement.
I said that I would reply to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale about ATP for the Pergau project. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already made it clear that, in deciding to proceed with the Pergau project, he took account of our wider interests in Malaysia and of the consequences for the United Kingdom in 1991 if we did not go ahead with it.
The Pergau project formed part of Malaysia's diversification strategy for a new, urgently needed electricity capacity. Since it began, Malaysia's demand has increased even more than forecast. The Malaysian Government had decided that the project should go ahead as it was economically and developmentally in the national interest. We ourselves have a diversified energy policy. If we had not carried through our commitment to the Pergau project, our credibility as a trading and investment partner would have been seriously damaged and would have withered a wide range of British prospects for the future. We should have paid the penalty for a breach of faith.

Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the comments of Sir Tim Lankester which were not widely reported in the press? In his evidence to the Select Committee, he said that the project was proceeding very well and that it was likely to be finished on time and under budget.

Mr. Goodlad: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right and he is also correct to point out those facts.

Mr. Lester: The Pergau dam is also part of Malaysia's regional policy, something which the Labour party should understand. The project is deliberately in the north of the country, which is the least developed part, and the intention was to bring electricity to a part of the country which does not have the sophisticated power stations that exist in the south. The Labour party is a great supporter of regional policy and should understand that the Malaysians were well within their rights to make that decision.

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is knowledgeable about these matters and he is, of course, absolutely right.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale mentioned so-called links with defence sales and what, in his eyes, were the Government's attempts to conceal what has happened. I have been re-reading some parliamentary questions and found that in June 1989 the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who is in her place, asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry about this matter. My right hon. Friend said:
Following the expression of Malaysian interest in United Kingdom overseas aid in early exchanges, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear to the Malaysian Finance Minister that it would not be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government to link aid with the defence sales package."—[Official Report, 13 June 1989; Vol. 154, c.397–98.]
In 1989, therefore, the matter was in the public domain.
Furthermore, on 25 January, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of State gave a written reply to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is not in his place. He said:
During discussions in 1988 about the proposed memorandum of understanding on defence sales, the Malaysians had requested a reference to aid. A protocol was signed during a visit to Kuala Lumpur in March 1988 by the then Defence Secretary, my noble Friend, Lord Younger of Prestwick. This set out the Malaysian Government's intention to buy defence equipment from the United Kingdom, with the details to be elaborated in the later memorandum. The protocol included a reference to 'aid in support of non-military aspects under the programme'.
After consultation with ministerial colleagues in London, the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the Malaysian Minister of Finance in June 1988 to say that aid could not be linked to defence sales. As a result the issue was not taken up in the memorandum of understanding on defence procurement which the British and Malaysian Prime Ministers signed in September 1988, and which did not cover aid. Our aid programme is not linked to defence sales."—[Official Report, 25 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 145–46.]
The Pergau project was suggested after Lord Younger had made it clear that there could be no formal link between defence sales and development projects.
Let us examine the reality of the multi-faceted relationships that Governments enjoy with one another. It is ridiculous to suggest that a country that has a defence sales relationship with another should, because of that relationship, be ineligible for ATP. It is equally ridiculous to suggest that a company involved in an ATP relationship should, because of that relationship, be ineligible for defence sales involving British industries. Provided that


the two do not depend on each other and that aid is not used —it is not—to finance defence sales, it seems that that is the way in which countries will inevitably proceed.

Sir David Steel: I do not disagree with that general proposition, but, in this particular case, the Minister is not seeking to deny what Lord Younger has said, which was that someone gave a verbal assurance that the two would be linked in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has just said should not happen. He subsequently corrected that in the letter that was read out.

Mr. Goodlad: I do not know when the verbal assurances were given—whether it was before the memorandum of understanding was signed—but I have no doubt that the Select Committee will investigate all these matters.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Goodlad: No, I must make progress.
We agree with the development assistance committee of OECD that aid quality should predominate in decisions to fund projects in which there is a large commercial interest. ATP does precisely that. Our procedures ensure that ATP is spent on projects in creditworthy developing countries where there will be development benefit and where British firms have proven experience to offer.
Let us put ATP into a proper perspective, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said. It accounts for less than 5 per cent. of the aid programme, which, in 1992–93, meant just over £90 million. In the same year, we spent £290 million on humanitarian assistance. Expenditure on the Pergau project is to take place over 14 years and the peak expenditure in any one year is £27 million—less than 1.3 per cent. of our current but expanding aid programme—so much for allegations that the project is taking over the programme.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, will he comment on the long-term damage being done to our relations with Malaysia as it affects companies—one, for instance, in my constituency, where unemployment stands at more than 13 per cent.—that are engaged in trade related neither to ATP nor to arms sales, yet are in danger of losing product?

Mr. Goodlad: I have every sympathy with the people whom my hon. Friend is describing—and we know where the blame lies.
The allegation that aid to a whole range of countries is linked to arms sales, which has been made by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and by others who clearly should know better, is absolute nonsense. There is no link between the provision of aid and the supply of arms. Some of the countries mentioned by ill-informed critics receive such a modest amount of aid from the United Kingdom that the whole idea is ludicrous.
Our aid is provided according to well-established criteria. Eighty per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to poor countries, with special attention being paid to progress in economic reform and to good government. Of course, we also pay particular attention to historical ties, especially with Commonwealth countries.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale mentioned the selective and misleading World Development Movement analysis and I shall deal with four examples from that. First, Jordan is a lower-middle income country with which Britain has close ties. We have a modest technical assistance programme spent mainly in the education and water sectors. Aid figures in recent years have been amplified not by the provision of more aid but by debt relief and by the inclusion of relief provided to refugees during the Gulf war. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman would prefer us not to have provided that relief.
In Oman, we provide only a small programme of technical assistance—a mere £750,000 in 1992–93. Our funds are spent on developing the country's human resources, which had been lagging behind its economic progress, and those funds have been put to good use. We are accordingly able to plan an even lower level of aid in future. Any attempt to link those tiny sums to Oman's defence purchases is laughable.
Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, apart from investment by the Commonwealth Development Corporation—which, as he may wish to know, the Government do not control country by country—our overall assistance to Thailand, including ATP, has declined from about £5 million in 1989–90 and 1990–91 to a little more than £2 million in 1992–93.
Indonesia is not a rich country. Its income per head is only about $650 a year. It is internationally acknowledged as having an outstanding record of sound economic management. According to the World bank, the numbers living in poverty have dropped from 70 million in 1970 to 27 million in 1990. But, of course, that is not a matter of any interest to Opposition Members.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Having said that we provide some form of aid to Indonesia, the Minister told us the income per head there. Will he tell us the comparable figure for Oman, to which he said that we also provide aid? What is the income per capita in Oman?

Mr. Goodlad: Without notice I cannot give the hon. Gentleman figures for per capita income. However, I can say that our aid to Oman amounts to a mere £750,000—a derisory amount. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen are shouting that there should not be any aid. They obviously take no interest in the people of Oman, but others do.
As I said, the number of people living in poverty in Indonesia dropped from 70 million in 1970 to 27 million in 1990. That, of course, is not a development in which Opposition Members will take any pleasure, because they could not care less about the poor in Indonesia.
Our aid supports projects in sectors such as energy efficiency, communications, forest management, education and public administration. Total British aid last year was only 18p per head. By comparison, our aid to Mozambique was nearly £2 per head. Nor is there any truth in the allegations of links between our aid and the sale of Hawk or other defence equipment.
I said that I would mention East Timor. We take a number of important criteria, including human rights, into careful account when deciding aid allocations. We do not recognise Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor and the Indonesians are well aware of the importance that we attach to human rights both in Indonesia and in East Timor, because we take frequent opportunities to remind them of it. Our aim is to influence, rather than to isolate, the


Indonesian Government and that is best done through dialogue. Suspending aid to Indonesia would not necessarily improve the human rights situation and could hurt those whom it is intended to help. However, I appreciate that the problems of those whom aid is intended to help are of no interest whatever to Opposition Members.
Ultimately, it is the policies of the countries concerned that will make the real difference. Let us applaud when poor countries become more prosperous through their own efforts, as many have done—or at least, let my hon. Friends applaud; I expect no applause from Opposition Members. Well-targeted and professionally managed aid has played a part in the success of such countries. But enterprise, entrepreneurship and sound policies play a greater part.
Aid will continue to be essential for the poorest countries, especially those unable to attract significant private resources. In delivering that aid, we shall continue to look for the best means available to achieve maximum impact.
We are now involving a larger number of British organisations, both public and private. The amount of official aid to be channelled through British nongovernmental organisations, for example, has increased fivefold over the past six years and my right hon. Friend the Minister has just announced a further increase.
Our aid programme and its objectives are under continual review and it is right that that should be so. Our aid should be scrutinised. We welcome that, because we believe that we do an excellent job. There is no danger whatever, either in developing countries or in British industry, of Opposition Members being seen to take any interest in the alleviation of poverty, or to be batting for Britain.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Goodlad: I hope that at the end of the debate Opposition Members, while they may be none the wiser—

Mr. Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you for permitting me to intervene at this point—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not an intervention."] I do not wish my party or myself to be included in the remarks that the Minister has made—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I greatly deplore that intervention; it was not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman has a genuine point of order, will he put it now to the Chair? Am Ito take it that what he said was not a point of order but an interruption? That is greatly to be deplored.

Mr. Goodlad: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, I except the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and his party from what I was saying.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who opened the debate with an excellent, indeed an unanswerable, speech. The Minister who has been put up to reply is one of many Ministers who speak in the House on overseas aid. Another sign of how lightly the Government treat that crucial issue is the fact that, every day that aid is discussed, a different Minister appears. The Minister—

Mr. Goodlad: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.
The Minister said that he was proud and privileged, yet he sounded lumbered and desperate, as well he should have done.

Mr. Goodlad: The reason why more than one Foreign Office Minister takes part in such debates is that we are all interested in the subject—unlike the Labour party, in which only one person, if that, seems to be interested in it.

Mr. Clarke: That must be an interest which has been hidden from the House hitherto—unless ATP stands not so much for aid and trade provision as for "assisting Tory paymasters". Many of us are beginning to see that that is what the debate is really about.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale has done the House a great service, because we discuss overseas aid and development all too seldom. It is staggering, but it is another sign of how the Government see such matters, that, although the debate is being opened by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it is apparently to be wound up by a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry. We now see how vested interests have deep control of the Tory party and little to do with the needs of the third world and the poorest in this universe. [Interruption.]
When the howling mob opposite reflect on the real problems of this debate, they will conclude that we are right to concentrate on the issue of the Pergau dam, even though the Minister left it almost as an aside towards the end of his speech. We are right to do that, not because criticisms have come from Opposition Members—which were wholly justified—but because criticisms have come from almost every quarter where people have been invited to consider these matters.
The Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office—which is not an affiliate of the Labour party—and many others have been invited to consider these matters. I do not think that The Sunday Times comes into the category of people who support my view. When the Minister failed to deal with the interesting exchange of letters in The Sunday Times last week when he was dealing with arms, he missed a crucial point in this debate. I shall return to that matter later.

Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Public Accounts Committee criticised the Government in this matter. Can he confirm that the Committee has published its report?

Mr. Clarke: As the House knows, the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee were very public. The National Audit Office, to which I referred, has published a report. [Interruption.] If there is a little order in the House, I may have an opportunity to refer to that report later.
The Pergau dam project, which is one of the most shameful episodes among many in the history of this Government, represented not only one bad decision but three. It represented the link between aid and arms; it represented funding of a very bad project; and it represented a Government who, having decided to fund a bad project, then produced a system of financial control which cost the British taxpayer an extra £56 million, according to the National Audit Office.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: rose—

Mr. Clarke: If hon. Members want to take up my limited time by intervening on jobs, I put it to them that £56 million would produce a great number of jobs in their constituencies, so they should support the view of the National Audit Office.

Mr. Hargreaves: The hon. Gentleman continues to refer to the Pergau dam project as a bad project. Nevertheless, can he state categorically whether he believes that it was the preferred site and the preferred project of the Malaysian Government?

Mr. Clarke: The Malaysian Government have a right to consider their priorities, as do British taxpayers and this House.
The Minister attempted to pretend that there was no link between the Government's obsession with Malaysia and blatant arms deals. I ask the House, as did the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, to consider the evidence. I welcome the fact that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will be considering the evidence. I did not hear a similar welcome from the Minister.
We begin with the protocol of 23 March 1988, which is an extremely interesting document.

Mr. Goodlad: rose—

Mr. Clarke: The Minister should allow me to develop this point.

Mr. Goodlad: To reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, we welcome the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We hope that it will clear away some of the sleaze and innuendo that has been propagated by Opposition Members.

Mr. Clarke: Having generously given way, I want hon. Members to know that I intend to continue my speech.
When the Minister, in one of his little asides, pretended that there was no link between aid and arms, that was blown apart by the letter dated 28 June 1988 from the then Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. George Younger, to the Malaysian Minister of Finance, which was mentioned in The Sunday Times. The letter clearly stated that
the linking of aid to projects was governed by international rules which would preclude the sort of arrangement which the Malaysian Minister of Finance had seemed to envisage at their meeting in March 1988.
Of course, the then Secretary of State for Defence was very much a part of that meeting. Any suggestion that he was not a party to the decisions and what was envisaged was totally removed on the same day in the letter from the British high commissioner to the Malaysian Minister of Finance dated 28 June 1988. In that letter, the British high commissioner said that the Government were
willing to offer further support for contracts… up to a total of £200 million for development projects to be agreed mutually between the two Governments".

Mr. Llew Smith: Last November, I asked the Secretary of State whether the decision to grant support for the Pergau project in Malaysia was linked to any bilateral trade agreement with Malaysia. The answer was no. When we consider the revelations of the past few days, does my hon. Friend think that I am too polite to accuse the Minister of being economical with the truth?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Minister and his sycophants pretend that the Government have been open and honest, even the most preliminary examination of replies to written questions such as that given to my hon. Friend show that the Government seek to hide from the truth time and again.
In the exchange of letters on 28 June, especially the letter involving the high commissioner, there is a firm indication that the Government were using the very limited overseas aid budget for the purpose of trade in arms. Not only is that unacceptable to the House, and not only has such a policy never been adopted or endorsed by the British people—it has never been the British Government's objective.
If the Minister says that it was the Government's objective, I invite him to produce one document from the Overseas Development Administration which says so. I am happy to give way to the Minister if he can produce it. Clearly, he cannot.
We then examine the role of the Foreign Secretary in this shabby affair. A telephone call from Portugal on Friday showed that the Foreign Secretary said that the business of aid had become entangled with arms. The question that we must ask today is, when will it be disentangled? We heard about the mathematical formula. We are entitled to ask who was invited to give a view on the mathematical formula—the Foreign Office, Downing street, the Minister's civil servants or the then Secretary of State for Defence. Above all, in the light of this debate, we are entitled to ask whether this was a one off.
My hon. Friends are perfectly entitled to draw the attention of the House and the Minister to what is taking place in East Timor, and the Government's involvement with Indonesia. Time and again, as we saw in Iraq, the Government have been involved in shady arms deals, only to find that our troops have been on the receiving end.
Would it not be ironic if we found that Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam were in a dispute over the islands in the South China sea and a Foreign Office Minister then came to the House and apologised for our role in providing the arms for such a conflict? Worse still, would it not be ironic if that were associated with our limited overseas development budget? [Interruption.] When the Minister sought to justify the Government's shady deals—

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): rose—

Mr. Stephen Day: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I am happy to give way to the Minister or to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who is trying to intervene from a sedentary position, if he will have the decency to put his point.

Mr. Day: My constituents who work in the defence industries would be interested to hear how many people the hon. Gentleman is prepared to see put out of work. He seems to have taken upon himself the high moral ground. Is he somehow saying that there is something morally wrong in working in the defence industries?

Mr. Clarke: No Opposition Member should take lectures about jobs from members of the party which is responsible for 2.8 million people on benefit, and a party which endorsed the view of a previous Chancellor of the


Exchequer that unemployment was "a price worth paying". I do not remember the hon. Gentleman objecting at that time.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I will give way later, but I am entitled to get on with my speech. It may be that Conservative Members agree with the Malaysian Prime Minister that we should not have a free press in this country, but we do have a Chamber where we are entitled to express our views. I shall endorse that privilege. I shall give way for the last time to the Minister.

Mr. Needham: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am grateful for the fact that this will be the last time he will do so, as we want to get on.
The hon. Gentleman commented about Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia perhaps having a fight over the Spratley Islands. What would happen if China were to get involved in that fight? Who then would provide the arms to let those countries legitimately defend their national interests? Would the hon. Gentleman deny them that?

Mr. Clarke: The House is entitled to know what would happen, and that is precisely the point that we are seeking to make.
Ministers have come to defend the indefensible, and they have told us that our case is merely political smearing. We are entitled to remind them that the dam was well and truly breached by a Lankester bomber of the old school. Some of us listened to the evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, and we heard Sir Timothy Lankester explain that the project was uneconomic. He was certainly in a strong position to do so, because he had forced them to produce the first ministerial direction since the Government came to power in 1979. He had forced the National Audit Office investigation, and he described what took place in Malaysia as an abuse of the aid programme.
The onus is on the Government. A senior and respected civil servant—so senior that he has now been put in charge of the whole Department for Education—has taken the view that it was an abuse of the aid programme. The Government ought to have put a stronger case than they have managed today. What Sir Timothy said was fair comment. After the appraisal in 1989, the price went walloping up, first by £81 million and then by another £20 million. It was indeed a bad buy.
We are told that the decision was taken against the advice of many people and organisations. Those included the World bank, which took the view that the project should be gas-powered and not hydro-electric. When the matter has been subjected to any reasonable examination, such as by the National Audit Office, it has been found faulty in the extreme.
In the light of all the evidence, Conservative Members are belatedly screaming about jobs. That is not a subject to which they have been hitherto terribly committed. If the Government had taken the right decision on Pergau, and had concluded on the evidence—as they were entitled to do —that it was not viable, the worst that could have happened was that we lost Malaysian contracts. Is that not what happened in any case? The loss of jobs is the responsibility of the Government, not of any Opposition Member.
What did the Government spend £230 million of taxpayers' money on? They did not give a damn for the starving poor: they gave a dam for their business friends. That is a reflection, not only on the way in which the Overseas Development Administration has been abused, but on the way in which our trade policies are conducted. It is a reflection on the Foreign Office that it was prepared to see such things taking place.
If there are difficulties between Malaysia and Britain, the responsibility lies as much with the Foreign Secretary, who overruled Sir Timothy Lankester, as it does with the Minister for Overseas Development, who apparently advised against the project but did not take action to follow through what appeared to be her convictions.

Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I have been generous in giving way hitherto.
The mess that the Government have produced in respect to the Malaysian project has most unfortunately put a question mark over the whole concept of overseas aid. Would it not be so much better if we had a Government who were really concerned about the British taxpayers' money and about a strategy for aid and development? Would it not be better if we had found the opportunities that exist in Africa, Asia and central America, where there are examples of the most crass poverty?
Those opportunities call for a change in the way in which aid is administered—there should not be a reduction in overseas aid, and it should not be abused in the way it has been on the Pergau project. How much better would it be if the Government took the policy back and made it work for people who are genuinely in need? Would it not be better if the Government placed the administration of those crucial policies at the heart of government, with a proper recognition of the full departmental status which overseas development should have?
Would it not be better if the Government accepted their responsibilities for the poorest people in the poorest countries, and if the Government managed their spending policies with proper openness and accountability? Above all, should not the Government accept the need, not to downgrade, but to upgrade the ODA?
Is it not absurd that, on the few occasions on which we have these debates, the Minister is not here? Baroness Chalker interrupted her trips abroad for a brief stopover in Wallasey, where she was rejected at the ballot box. She now pops up again at the House of Lords Dispatch Box, and we are supposed to accept that that is democracy in action in modern Britain.
As we have seen throughout the debate, the Overseas Development Administration has been treated with contempt by the Government. If we are not careful, the ODA will receive the same fate as the Department of Energy, which is sadly no longer with us. Should there not be a Department to deal with the crucial issues of world poverty? That Department could have a real say in foreign policy, an influence in the Treasury and an influence in the crucial problems of debt and refugees. What we have seen today is totally unacceptable to the House and to the British people.
In contrast to that sorry mess, the Labour Government will re-establish the essential humanitarian core of our aid policy. We shall do so in a way that is consistent with our


wider principles of openness, responsibility and accountability. We shall restore the good name of Britain's aid programme, and the moral authority which this country once enjoyed.

Mr. Tim Renton: I found the speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) utterly despicable. He made a personal attack on Lady Chalker, who has given years of her life to working for the Overseas Development Administration. He talked of shady deals, Tory paymasters and the Pergau dam. What on earth does the hon. Gentleman know about the ODA and its work?
I declare an interest, as an unpaid vice-chairman of the British Council, along with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I am sorry that he is not sitting on the Opposition Front Bench today, because I think that he would have been as horrified as I was, and he would not have recognised the work of the ODA from what the hon. Member for Monklands, West has just said.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West recently lost his seat on the shadow Cabinet. I now see why, and I hope that he soon loses his responsibility for the ODA also.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Renton: I am not going to give way.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Renton: I will give way to hon. Gentleman, as I have just named him, but not to anyone else.

Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman ought to calm down. There were times when he ought to have told us that he was a moderate Tory. Could he please rely on the facts? One of the facts that he might wish to consider is that I was not only re-elected to the shadow Cabinet, but I increased my vote and moved from 18th to 13th place.

Mr. Renton: I know that the hon. Member for Hamilton has taken the hon. Gentleman's position as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. I assumed that the hon. Member for Monklands, West had lost his seat altogether. If I was wrong about that, I certainly apologise to him.
Let me remind the House of a little history. In 1987, as a Foreign Office Minister, I visited Malaysia. It was one of the last trips that I made as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I stayed with the high commissioner, Sir David Gilimore, now the civil servant head of the Foreign Office. That visit came at the end of six years of patient hard work in rebuilding the relationship with Malaysia after it had been broken when the Conservative Government decided, for good economic reasons, that overseas students had to pay full university fees.
The high commission, the Ministers involved, and I too, played a part in the slow process of re-establishing a cordial relationship with Malaysia. The position is inevitably difficult with a country that was once a colony. Britain regarded Malaysia as a source of rubber or tin. As a country comes into full independence as a member of the Commonwealth, it can have a touchy relationship with what one might call its previous matriarch, expropriator or coloniser, depending on the view that one takes. Over the years, we have had exactly the same difficulties with India.
It is tragic for Malaysia, for Britain and for industry in Britain that the careful rebuilding work has been temporarily jeopardised by the publicity surrounding the Pergau dam and the arms deals. I stress the word "publicity". The Malaysian Government have time after time made it plain that their objection and the reason why they have returned to a "buy British last" policy is not the arms deals, if they existed, or the dam contract, but the media interest in Britain, which has, of course, been stoked up by Opposition Members.
I shall not rehearse the arguments. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has rehearsed them well this afternoon, and he did so in the House last Friday. Although I was not in the House last Friday, I read the comments by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I thought that they were disgraceful, coming from someone who pretends to be a shadow Foreign Secretary. His comments were dishonourable and bad for the reputation of Britain.
Malaysia is undoubtedly the most successful market in south-east Asia at present. One fully understands why companies such as BICC, P and O, and Trafalgar House are anxious to build up their contacts there. I must say in response to some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) that if one wants to trade with an overseas country, one has to trade according to its manners and customs, not one's own. We may sell on the basis that British goods are best, but we cannot sell on the basis that the British way of doing business is best. In my judgment, it is arrogant to try to do so.
There are instances in which our way of business is not very good. For example, our major companies are often slow payers. The Government are slow payers. Local authorities are slow payers. That would not be acceptable in Germany. The Germans would find it unbelievable that major companies do not pay a 30-day invoice for 90 or 120 days.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Renton: No. There is little time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own remarks, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Before I entered the House, I spent 20 years with an international commodities firm. We sold commodities around the world. If our chairman of the day did not like the way of doing business in one country—for example, because it was necessary to pay an excessive commission or agency fee to our agent to get the order and we had to look the other way and not inquire too much where it was going—we simply did not go into that country. But someone else got the business.
We did not try to change that country's ways, because we knew perfectly well that it would be a waste of time. We were a private company, and those were decisions that we could take, but in overseas trade one must do in Rome as Rome does. If people do not like it, they should not go to Rome.

Sir David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Miss Joan Lestor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Renton: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman simply because I referred to him.

Sir David Steel: I should genuinely like to know where the right hon. Gentleman would draw the line between payments to agencies and backhanders in Swiss bank accounts, open bribery and so on.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly expect me to pursue that line. I am not saying that I approve of such things, condone them or wish to make them legal. I am simply saying that, in the world as it is and has been for a long time, if people wish to sell overseas they will sell in the manner that is acceptable to that country. If they do not like it, they should not try to get into that overseas market, because they will simply waste their time.

Miss Joan Lestor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Renton: No, if the hon. Lady will forgive me. I will not give way. I hope that she will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I hope very much that relations will very quickly return to normal between the United Kingdom and Malaysia. Both countries have a real interest in that, because they have a lot to offer each other.
There are about 12,000 Malay students in Britain at present. After years of repairing bridges, we now have more Malay students in Britain than students from any other place except Hong Kong. It would be tragic for Malay students and for the United Kingdom if their education here were interrupted. When former students return to their country of origin, they usually—I stress the word "usually"—prove to be sympathetic, understanding, sometimes critical, but friends of Britain, to our political and commercial advantage.
I have already declared an interest as a vice-chairman of the British Council. The House should know that the British Council regards itself as a partner of the Overseas Development Administration. Not only does the ODA provide about a quarter of our grant in aid each year—some £32 million or £33 million—but the British Council acts as agent for the ODA on technical development contracts, to the extent in the last financial year of a declared figure of £127 million.
The ODA acts as our agent in all human development matters, such as small hospitals, development of small companies and education—the list is endless. If people want to learn more about it, I strongly recommend to them the last British Council report.
Over 30 years, the British Council has worked with the ODA. It has been a successful co-operation. Increasingly, thanks to Treasury rules, we secure the agency work through our success in the competitive bidding process. We reckon that we win the bids because we have the necessary project management skills and a great deal of local knowledge.
In order to maintain those skills, we should like to have much more ODA work, because we need a necessary basis of work from the ODA to be successful in bidding for project work that is funded by the multilateral agencies, such as the European Community and the World bank. Here I am certainly making a point on behalf of the British Council.
The British Council would like to see the approach to the work done with the money made available by the

diplomatic wing of the ODA as a seamless robe in which diplomatic posts, bilateral overseas aid and British Council know-how funds all had common objectives and a common agenda. That objective would be improvement of the human condition of the recipient country but also, humanitarian aid apart—that is approximately 15 per cent. of the ODA budget—consideration of furthering British interests.
I have spoken about the growth of the multilateral agencies and of projects that could come to the British Council through the World bank or the European development fund. That is a point which the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale ignored. Of the total money now available to the ODA, approximately half already goes to multilateral agencies over which the ODA effectively has little control.
If the figure is 50 per cent now, it is likely to rise to nearly 60 per cent. by 2000. Those are the contracts that the British Council wishes to win on the back of a regular, steady bank of experience as agent for the Overseas Development Administration. We must get closer to the European development fund—in order to ensure that many more of its funds are invested in education and training, which are particularly important for us and in health—and, more generally, to the Anglophone countries.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale gave the impression that he saw a slant in our bilateral aid towards countries to which we can make arms sales. To be fair, he should have looked at the programme of the European development fund. He would have seen that more than 50 per cent. of its fund goes to Francophone countries, which is a far higher percentage than can be justified on the grounds of their population or gross domestic product.
Some 28 per cent. of the European development fund is spent on exchange stabilisation. The major beneficiaries of exchange rate stabilisation were—surprise, surprise—Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, Senegal and Papua New Guinea. Cote d'Ivoire alone received more than twice the total African, Caribbean and Pacific expenditure for exchange stabilisation.
The House should look at that area—it is where the great growth of the future lies and where we must have more influence. It is where we in the British Council are interested in winning jobs to provide income and experience for British training and education. We must increasingly look to that area for our future work.

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Mr. Renton: I shall not give way, as I am about to conclude.
I was delighted to catch the eye of the previous occupant of the Chair, as today happens to be the 20th anniversary of the day that I was elected a Member of Parliament for Mid-Sussex. My majority then was 12,000, and it is now more than 20,000things seem to be going in the right direction.
Over those 20 years, I have learnt that politics is not a simple business. In the past 10 years, I have been at the Foreign Office, two of my daughters have been working for aid agencies that are partly financed by the ODA, and now I am at the British Council; and I have learnt that aid is not a simple, purist business.
To win overseas contracts, we have to fight with all the means and vigour in our power against industrial


competitors from all over the world. I hope that we continue to do that for the benefit of the third world, the developing world, overseas countries and, certainly, the benefit of this country.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on his 20 years in the House. He used the term "majority"—he has not yet reached that. We hope that there will be an election that will prevent him from reaching his majority.
I think that, surprisingly, there is some general agreement on both sides of the House that we are in a mess over the issue of aid. There is fear at the effect on jobs of the problems in our current relationship with Malaysia. We are concerned at the way in which the aid for trade provision has been used. The use of that provision has been heavily criticised by the Overseas Development Administration, the senior civil servant within it and, we believe, the Minister within it. The National Audit Office has also criticised the abuse of the aid budget. The criticism has been internal—from within the ODA—and external and objective—from the National Audit Office.
The abuse of the aid for trade provision has consequences throughout the House and in my constituency. The fine firm of John Brown produces gas turbines. It has provided a bedrock of stability in Clydebank when all else has collapsed around it. It has competed all over the world in difficult markets. ft has competed in Malaysia, where it has won contracts for about £185 million worth of gas turbines without aid and trade provision and without subsidy. It now fears that it will be cut out of further markets to the value of £250 million due to the consequences of the use of the aid and trade provision.
The Government sponsored the Pergau dam project by Balfour Beatty-Cementation despite the fact that the National Audit Office report criticised it for being bad for Malaysia and the consumer, and for being expensive. The Government sponsored the project despite a World bank report that said that gas turbines should be used in Malaysia. By sponsoring that project, the Government have removed any chance of jobs for my constituents who work in the gas turbine industry.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Malaysian Government have the right to decide their priorities and to decide which infrastructure project they want to support in their own country?

Mr. Worthington: Of course they do—but it is an easy decision to make when another Government approach the Malaysian Government saying that they will pay for the project. The Government told the Malaysian Government, "You have a free choice, but we will pay for this option." That is what happened with the Pergau dam.
We are faced with the problems of a Government who have never regarded their aid budget with the long-term aim of developing the poorest parts of the world—as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr Clarke) said. That is the purpose for which an aid budget should primarily be used. The Government have always seen the aid budget first and foremost as an instrument of trade.
There is some legitimacy in that, but it means that the Government always put issues such as poverty reduction and human rights on the back burner if they get in the way of other issues, particularly the arms trade. We are faced with the hypocrisy of the Conservative Government who criticise developing countries for devoting too much of their budget to arms, but rush to sell arms to those countries. Britain preaches that the countries of the developing world should spend more of their budget on health and education but seeks at every opportunity to sell them arms.
In a parliamentary answer, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that we did not allow the export of arms and equipment that was likely to be used against the civilian population. We must have a much more serious answer from the Minister of State about what has been happening in East Timor. According to the figures given by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), 200,000 of the 750,000 people of East Timor have died since the illegal occupation of that country by the Indonesians in 1975. How were they killed and what was the role of British arms in that? Even the Americans have cut aid to East Timor.
I was told in a parliamentary answer that the European Union does not regard Indonesia as somewhere that should be given significant amounts of aid. We have shovelled arms and aid towards Indonesia whereas, considered objectively, our aid budget to that country should be falling. I cannot remember whether it was the Minister himself who said that, according to Baroness Chalker, the numbers living in absolute poverty in Indonesia fell from 70 million to 27 million between 1970 and 1990. When there is rising poverty in the rest of the world, there is at least a case for priority to be given there.
The diversion of funds that links arms and aid is pretty massive. The £234 million for the Pergau dam is three times the aid for any other capital project. We are spending £234 million on Pergau. In 1991–92, we spent a total of £236 million, £2 million more, on all the 47 least developed countries in the world. That is the scale of the commitment to Pergau. The £56 million—the loose change of the Pergau deal—to find the least efficient way of paying for it, is twice what we have given to Somalia.
Let me give another example of the diversion of aid to countries that use arms, which increase their use of arms and which buy arms from us. In the Foreign Office's list of capital projects of over £20 million in value—there have been only 18 in total—four have gone to one country, Indonesia. By contrast, in the whole continent of Africa there is only one project of over £20 million, and that is in Egypt.
Last year, a huge amount of soft loan money went to Indonesia, so soft that nothing need be paid back for seven years. Last year, at very much the same time—I hope that the Minister will tell us the purpose of these visits—the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Secretary of State for Defence went to Indonesia. We clinched a deal for £500 million worth of Hawk aircraft, and the amount of assistance to Indonesia in soft loans and other facilities went up rapidly as well. Were those negotiations on arms and aid linked or were they, to use the jargon of the day, in parallel? And what does that mean, in parallel? Or, again using the jargon of the day, was it just done on a "nod and a wink" basis?
Perhaps the Minister will give me another answer. Will he, either now or in a letter, comment on the press report that negotiations are going on for the release of Xanana Gusmao, the East Timor leader, who was imprisoned after an appalling trial? Are the British Government and their European partners negotiating his release to Guinea-Bissau—

Mr. Needham: Perhaps I can answer the hon. Gentleman's first question about Indonesia because that is an important part of my remit. The hon. Member knows that we decided to concentrate aid and trade provision on the poorest countries of the world, with incomes of less than $700 per head. That includes Indonesia, which is one of the poorest countries in the world. We are giving the people of Indonesia worthwhile infrastructure projects which will lead in time to increased trade. We have done exactly the same in China., but the hon. Member will use only those examples that suit his argument.

Mr. Worthington: When I looked at the list of very large projects, I wondered whether to draw attention to the fact that there were two projects of over £20 million for China and to ask where human rights came into them.
The Minister interrupted what I was saying. I wonder why he interrupted at that particular point. Is any negotiation going on at present between the British Government and their European partners for the release of the East Timor leader? Is his release to take place to Guinea-Bissau so that the European Union will moderate its criticism of Indonesia at this month's meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva and so that Britain and others can continue arms sales to Indonesia? We shall watch That with great interest. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) is present and could seek to deny that right now if he wished.
The pause is interesting. The Government seem to have commented already.
We must remember also the hidden victims of the Government's use, which I would call a corrupt use, of the aid budget—the Governments of the world who would otherwise benefit from that assistance and the countries that cannot benefit from aid and trade because they have no money with which to trade.
We must also ask whether this provision is really necessary. It is a complicated issue because hon. Members in all parts of the House realise that we need to stimulate British industry because of its run-down over recent years. The Government boast that British firms benefit enormously from the aid budget. They legitimately boast that, for every £1 of aid, British industry receives £1.40 worth of orders from overseas. The information that I recently received from the World bank was that, for every £1 that Britain puts into the World bank, British industry receives £1.85 worth of British contracts. That raises the issue of how the World bank conducts its business. If it is done on a perfectly fair basis, it seems that British firms benefit more from our putting money into the World bank than from our aid and trade provision.
The appalling thing is that Britain's aid budget is falling. The Minister, with his selective—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is dealing with a very important subject when he mentions the World bank and its policies. Will he reflect on the lack of democracy in the make-up of the World Bank's

board and its decision-making process and on the way in which it tranfers a large amount of wealth from the poorest countries to the richest?

Mr. Worthington: I am not in the least grateful for that point because it would lead me, in the concluding part of my speech, right up another avenue that I do not want to explore at present, because I want to concentrate on what I am saying now. But the openness and accountability of the World bank are legitimate concerns. Perhaps one of the reasons why we found out about the Pergau dam was that here we have instruments such as the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee to find out these things. The problem with the World bank is that if similar events were occurring in its business we would have no mechanism with which to find out.
Our aid budget has fallen and is still falling. It has gone from 0.51 per cent. of gross national product in 1979 to a figure that we do not now know. We do not know it because the Government are fiddling the aid figures in the same way as they fiddled the unemployment figures. They have put the traditional overseas development budget in with central and eastern Europe, and they will not now tell us the figure for our aid budget.
The tragedy of the Pergau dam affair is that the relatively poor people of the world are being shrunk out of the aid budget by considerations other than their particular needs. The needs that have been met have been those of the Government to stimulate the arms trade, in the case of the Pergau dam. Who can now doubt that the reason why the Pergau dam went ahead was that, alongside it, in parallel and entangled with it, was the need to procure very large arms orders for this country?
That is that is wrong about this, and it is why I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on raising the issue in this debate.

Mr. Den Dover: As a civil engineer, and one who was responsible for overseas work in Iran—the joint venture of Laing and Wimpey in 1975–77—and as unpaid parliamentary adviser to the Export Group for Construction Industries for the past 12 years, I express my interest, but I have no paid interest to declare. So here are my own thoughts and comments on tonight's debate, a debate which shows a lack of appreciation on the Opposition Benches of how business is done in overseas territories.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) pointed out the need to pay people in those territories for introducing work. Would any Opposition Member not pay an estate agent for finding somebody to buy his or her house? We have agreed reasonable operating fees in overseas markets and we need to grab the work, in fierce competition with our overseas competitors such as Germany, France and Holland.
It is alleged that the Malaysian Pergau dam project has received some grant. If it has not, there is no onus on Malaysia to repay that in terms of a defence contract. All that we have given are soft loans, which means a reduced interest rate on the repayments which the Malaysians must make for that project, as well as reduced export credit guarantee rates of cover. No money has been put into the project by the Government. We are simply giving reduced


interest rates. Why is there, therefore, an onus on Malaysia to place defence contracts with British suppliers of armaments?

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is clear evidence that there was no linkage? The defence agreement reached with the Malaysian Government changed from an agreement to supply Tornados to an agreement to supply Hawk aircraft. If there had been a link, one would presume that it would have had a consequential effect on other projects such as the Pergau dam. There was no such effect, which is clear factual evidence that there is no such link.

Mr. Dover: I entirely agree that there was no such linkage.
I welcome the Foreign Affairs Select Committee investigating this matter in great detail. I shall listen carefully to what is said there and look carefully at the record of the discussion and investigations.
The Pergau project is exactly what the Malaysian Government wanted. That fact is extremely important. The Sunday Times said that the project is no good as it is producing electricity for only a few hours a day. However, the dam is to meet peak demands and it can cost an enormous amount to build enormous power stations or gas turbines to fill that peak demand of electricity. It is far better to go along with a project that the Malaysians wanted and were willing to pay for over a long period.
The media also tried to show that the 12 or 14 years project is a long period. But it is on programme; it is only a five-year programme; and it is working within budgets.
Another point of correction is that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, the aid-trade provision is only 5 per cent. of the Government's total overall aid budget. I welcome the fact that, under the aid-trade provision, jobs and the provision of equipment from the United Kingdom flows out to those countries; they paid good hard currency for those exports, which results in jobs in the United Kingdom.
A lot of misrepresentation and misinformation about the project has been rife in the media. I am delighted to have this opportunity briefly to correct one or two points. We must press, in fierce competition, for such projects. We must do everything possible to get future Malaysian contracts back on the road, and I deplore the possibility of losing the international airport project because of stupid media hype, which has done the United Kingdom no good whatever.

Mr. Derek Enright: Because of the comprehensive job that was done on the negative aspects of the motion by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), I need not dwell long on them, save to make a few comments about the remarks by the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and, more recently, by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover).
I have considerable practical experience of firms trading overseas and of overseas aid, which is why I was surprised that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex got wrong the way in which the European budget works. If we are to affect the

European budget—it is important that we do—it is crucial that we understand the instruments properly before we start to criticise them.
On the question of currency, the Minister's speech on the Government's positive amendment to the motion was disappointing. He said what far-sighted chaps they were, looking forward to a fine future and concentrating on aid to the poorest, but not once did he mention sub-Saharan Africa or the Government's policies to be pursued there. Given that the Government amendment contains some important, positive aspects, that was the least that he could have done. It was a shame that his entire speech consisted of petty, party-political sniping when something important should have been discussed.
To take up the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), we might have heard something about the World bank, for example. We are experiencing real problems with the relationship between the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and a variety of UN institutions, which need to be more integrated in their approach; the Government should recognise that they are not operating in isolation. They should consider what policies their partners within the European Community and the United Nations are pursuing. As the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex mentioned the British Council, it might be worth looking at what the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation is doing. I know from personal experience that it is doing some first-class work in basic linguistics, which would be assisted by co-operation with the British Council.
Given the Government's positive attitude, they might consider funding UNESCO again. It is important that they look at it afresh and see whether they can mingle with the British Council. We can be proud of what the British Council does and I pay testimony to the superb quality of its staff, but it is totally out-gunned by Germany and France, which put far more resources into such work and carry it out in many countries other than the ex-empire.
In Guinea-Bissau, for example, which my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) mentioned, the British Council regularly refused to do anything except pay an occasional visit because it did not have the resources, whereas similar institutions in Germany, France and Portugal were doing a considerable job. The aid that the United Kingdom gave to Guinea-Bissau during the three years in which I was there consisted of a set of football shirts. Although they were welcomed by the football team that received them, they did little for development. Guinea-Bissau is one of the poorest countries in Africa, yet it was given no money whatever.
My next point impinges slightly on the Malaysian issue and concerns the coal operation business and the effective use of money, particularly that spent on energy. If money is to be spent on energy, be it on a dam or whatever, it should be spent effectively, economically and in a sustainable way. I understand that, technically, that is not necessarily the case with Malaysia as the money could have been spent more economically, although the contract would then not have gone to the company to which it went. It is certainly true elsewhere that, when electricity generators are given, which admittedly produces jobs in this country, the power station can use that electricity generator for its quarter lifetime but it is then incapable, because they go to the poorest countries, of paying for the spare parts and repairs required. One has only to go round


Africa looking at machinery there to see that it is disused, and for one simple reason—there is not sufficient hard currency to buy the spare parts.
I return to the problem of the World bank, the IMF and the United Nations and to the point made by the right. hon. Member for Mid-Sussex about more money from the European development fund going to French countries than to others for the stabilisation of their currencies. That shows that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that the French franc is used on the Côte d'Ivoire as a basis for the common currency, which is a semi-hard currency. If those who live out there cannot get a dollar or a pound they are very pleased to get francs CFA. The currency is backed by the French and provides a semi-hard native African currency with some purchasing power. The ability to continue to buy is crucial to some African countries. Not one of those problems was mentioned by the Minister.
At Question Time on Monday, I put some of the problems to the Minister. He had notice of my question, but ducked it completely. Currency in Africa is important for its survival and development and it is about time that a real effort was put into addressing the problem.
Turning from the World bank to financial development, the most successful lending projects in Africa, South America and, indeed, Indonesia, have come not from the World bank but from small credit lines. There are credit lines in Africa set up by African women and primed by European money, that have a rate of return which would be the envy of the greediest capitalist.
Those projects are doing something truly effective in agricultural production. They are renewing tools which do not necessarily come from Cheltenham or from the constituency of any other hon. Members who scream about the loss of jobs that will occur if we do not dump on other people unsustainable debts through selling them arms and other such large-scale projects. Those credit lines are producing the small developments which are crucial. That grass roots development should be sustained.
The hon. Gentleman talks about British people getting jobs directly because they make arms in Cheltenham. I invite the hon. Member for Cheltenham—

Mr. Burns: Chelmsford.

Mr. Enright: I apologise for lumbering the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) with Cheltenham. Even representing Chelmsford, the hon. Gentleman should visit my constituency in Hemsworth. He can come to Featherstone, South Emsell and South Kirby and see the pits that have been destroyed directly by the Government. The pits did not depend upon foreign trade, but were closed directly as a result of his vote.
The hon. Gentleman stands up and says that we do not want to lose jobs, having said that losing jobs in Hemsworth represented the harsh light of real economic facts, whatever they are. I will not accept the crocodile tears of Conservative Members until they have stopped the direct loss of jobs as a result of the Government's actions. I am delighted to see at least one Conservative Member who abstained on the vote on the miners.

Mr. Burns: With regard to the crocodile tears, I will not take any sanctimonious lectures from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Enright: I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I look forward to the speech by the hon. Member for Chelmsford and I hope that he will give way to me.
The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex rightly said that bribery often occurs, but it is wrapped up. It is not called bribery; it is called commission. That indeed happens. I do not see why we should call foreigners people who take bribes when we call Mark Thatcher and his partner people who take commission for performing exactly the same job of selling arms abroad. That simply will not do.
I leave the Government with one thought, and the Minister for Trade has direct responsibility for this matter. The greatest thing that we can do for development in Mozambique, which was mentioned earlier, is to prevent the export of mines from Britain. Will the Minister ban the export of mines unilaterally?

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, not least because I have worked with three different financial institutions that have had extensive dealings over the years with Malaysia.
During today's debate and others, hon. Members have mentioned the Pergau dam. I should like to reiterate one point that Labour Members underestimate. There is a staggering intellectual, patronising arrogance when British civil servants or hon. Members tell the Malaysians that they have accepted a dam in the wrong place. If it is Malaysian policy to have a regional spread of such projects and they want energy provided in a certain area for regional development, as well as for the purely and strictly economic benefits that such a project may bring to that area, they are within their rights in standing their ground and saying that they want the dam in that particular spot and prefer it to another type of project elsewhere.
When the British Government are criticised for having underwritten the financing of the dam, it is unjust to call it shabby or, as some Opposition Members have suggested, the corrupt use of the aid for trade provision.
"Aid for trade" should be exactly that. Some Conservative Members would disagree profoundly with Opposition Members about the whole nature of overseas aid. Some Conservative Members would say quite openly that they do not believe that our overseas aid should be distributed to foreign countries unless it goes either directly towards humanitarian aid in the poorest possible countries, or specifically where there is some benefit to British interests.
I support entirely the decision of my right hon. and hon. Friends who were originally involved in the project. In the case of Malaysia, they did exactly what they thought was in the British interests. In the harsh light of day, there may have been economic arguments against putting the dam in that particular place or against there being a hydro-electric project as against a gas-fired project. However, that was the Malaysian preference and it represented an effort to restore our diplomatic and trade links with that country; that was in the British interests.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is so disturbing about the whole affair is that the article in The Sunday Times about alleged corruption in the Malaysian Government was published with a picture of the Pergau dam underneath it, despite the fact that the story was more than nine years old and in no way related to the Pergau dam? That is what the Malaysians were complaining about and why they took the action they did, which proves


conclusively that their action had nothing to do with the project or the arms sales that took place at about the same time to Malaysia.

Mr. Hargreaves: I am grateful to hon. Friend, as I can now foreshorten my remarks. I was about to come specifically to that point. What aggrieves me and my hon. Friends is that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) did not take that into consideration. In an uncharacteristic fashion, the right hon. Gentleman went down a route of what can only be described as rather shabby smearmongering.

Mr. Burns: But that is characteristic.

Mr. Hargreaves: No, I disagree. I believe that such smearmongering appears to have been promoted by one or two individuals here, perhaps with senior editors of certain Sunday or other newspapers, carrying out a distinct campaign or vendetta, particularly against the Prime Minister, but also against the Foreign Secretary.
It is sad when British interests and jobs—in companies such as by Biwater or PowerGen, which are in neighbouring constituencies to mine, and in which my constituents work—are put at risk by other people's political smearmongering and by the vendettas of one or two editors against Ministers or against the Prime Minister himself. That is extremely regrettable and I urge Opposition Members to refer their remarks strictly to the appropriateness of the dam and the Malaysians' choice of that project, rather than trying to obtain some cheap political capital out of smeafmongering.

Sir Russell Johnston: On the basis of the old military adage that attack is the best form of defence, I expected the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to wind up. He could then have said to us, "If you think that we are bad, look at all these other chaps; they are so much worse."—[HON. MEMBERS: "Foreigners."] Who can speak about foreigners with more knowledge and certainty than those with foreign blood in their veins?
In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the former Liberal leader, set out our criticisms and specific recommendations. With respect to some of the reactions that we had from Conservative Members, he was restrained.

Mr. Burns: Sleazy.

Sir Russell Johnston: I know that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) virtually frothed at the mouth at one stage.

Mr. Burns: It was sleazy, innuendo and rubbish.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman obviously believes that shouting at people is good for his soul, but it does not advance rational argument. I am saying that my right hon. Friend advanced a rational argument which is also demonstrated in many other places. There is no doubt whatever that these are matters of public concern. They have attracted particular attention in a number of newspapers. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) indicated that if matters were raised in The Independent on Sunday, the Observer or The

Sunday Times it is media hype. Other hon. Members said the same. That is quite a surprising view to take of newspapers that attempt—The Independent on Sunday and the Observer certainly do—to maintain intellectual standards of journalism.

Mr. Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the article that caused such offence to the Malaysian Government had nothing whatever to do with the Pergau dam, despite the fact that the newspaper published a picture of it below the article?

Sir Russell Johnston: I suppose it was triggered by it, but I am not arguing with the hon. Gentleman about that. As some quick-witted chap—quicker witted than I—said earlier, perhaps the Government should do something about Murdoch. That perhaps was quite a good point.

Mr. Corbyn: It was me.

Sir Russell Johnston: There is no doubt that the non-governmental organisations are deeply unhappy about certain developments in the British aid policy and programme. That also cannot be denied by Conservative Members. We can always argue about the size of the aid budget, but the House should not forget that the Conservative manifesto of the previous election contained a commitment to meet the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product, and that the Prime Minister renewed that commitment in the run-up to the Rio summit. That is on the record. Yet, under the Conservative Government, whatever words are written or spoken, the proportion of GNP has declined from 0.51 per cent. in 1979 to 0.31 per cent. in 1992 and is projected to fall to a record low of 0.26 per cent. next year. That is a very bad record.
The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), chided my right hon. Friend. In my opinion, the Minister is usually amiable—sometimes a little deadpan, but certainly amiable. But on this occasion he said, rather uncharacteristically, that my right hon. Friend was unhelpful to those working in the field. I do not accept that at all. Indeed, both Ministers know that the opposite is true. The NGOs have been in touch with my right hon. Friend and me in advance of the debate, expressing views, many of which he articulated. There is no doubt that the leading NGOs in the aid field are concerned about not only aid quantity, but aid quality; whether it is rightly focused, as the Government continually claim; tied aid; and the role of the aid and trade provision and so on. Therefore, it is not at all fair for the Minister to attack my right hon. Friend on that basis.
The Minister also seemed rather reluctant to engage in a debate on that question. His speech was rather spattered with phrases such as "they could not care less about the poor in Indonesia." He was referring to the collectivity of Opposition Members. What he said was totally untrue. It was quite ridiculous to suggest such a thing. There is a legitimate cause for concern about the treatment of East Timor. He did not respond to that. He said:
Our aim is to influence rather than to isolate Indonesia.
What influence have the Government had in East Timor? It is not an easy issue. I am not trying to pretend that it is or that we have some great simplistic solution. One might say that cutting aid will hurt only the helpless, who are not responsible for these human rights infringements.
One could equally say that sanctions on Serbia are undoubtedly harming a great many totally innocent people


who have nothing to do with the adverse side of Serbian policy. But knowing that should not lead us to ignore the problem or not to be willing where necessary to face up to those things. What concerns us is that the Government, so far as we can judge, and I agree that the evidence is circumstantial, are not wrestling with those admittedly difficult problems, but are allowing their judgment to be over-influenced—I put it no stronger than that—by the market for arms. That might be resented by Conservative Members—and is in some cases. That has been consistently denied—I recognise that—but it is widely believed, not for any sleaze reasons, among commentators and the NGOs.
On Malaysia, no one has explained what the Foreign Secretary meant when he talked about the aid and trade being "briefly entangled".
Thailand has benefited from a 624 per cent. increase in United Kingdom aid between 1980 and 1992–93. lit was also the fifth largest buyer of British arms; Indonesia was the fourth.
There is clearly a difference within the House, not always simply on the basis of the two sides on the issue, because it is difficult. It also relates to constituency problems. That is undoubtedly the case. But surely we should have some policy on aid, some view of what Government should do. For example, both Japan and the Netherlands have decided: to adopt an aid policy that consciously favours countries that renounce the arms trade. Many countries are not subject to any perceptible exterior threat.

Mr. Duncan: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that most of our major competitors see their aid programmes as part of their foreign policy? Does he not accept that most companies should adapt their business practices to suit the markets in which they are working? Is Liberal Democrat policy now "When in Rome, be British"—or, to put it another way, "Always play the game, and always lose"?

Sir Russell Johnston: The short answer is no. I do not think that I need expand on Tat very much.
The Government have not been terribly persuasive today. Will the Minister please try to tell me what sort of guideline suspends aid in the case of Kenya—probably quite properly—but does not do so in the case of Indonesia? I simply do not follow the logic. Certainly, the Government themselves would always say that they have a logic, and have sustained it; but I do not see any consistency.
The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), a former Conservative Chief Whip, has graced the Chamber with his presence for 20 years. He said that we must adjust to ways of doing trade—as did the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—and that we could not tell other people how to trade. There is a good deal of truth in that: I follow the argument. It is, of course, not always corrupt for some enabler to get a commission—but it can be corrupt.
It seemed to me, sadly,. that the ultimate logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that any illusions about a good governance concept operating in aid policy should simply be dumped, because Governments would simply conform to local conditions. If local conditions mean a few pounds here and there—or whatever currency obtains; rupees, perhaps—that is the way life is.
As I have said, it is not easy. I am annoyed, however, when people say, "We have a good governance clause", and then do little about it. Conservative Members may say that Liberal Democrats, or even Labour Members, are being naive; I heard that word once or twice. But we must have some bloody ideals, must we not?
Hon. Members will be relieved—as will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to learn that I do not intend to go over the Pergau dam affair again; it has been dealt with at length by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and the hon. Members for Monklands, West (Mr Clarke) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
I want to make two more short observations before concluding on the controversial issue of political contributions from companies, which will allow certain hon. Members to froth at the mouth again. First, the Government continually claim that 80 per cent. of British aid goes to the poorest countries. I am afraid that that does not mean that it reaches the poorest people. An OECD report on international aid to basic education found that only three donors in the world spent more than 25 per cent. of their educational aid budgets on basic education and adult literacy—New Zealand, which spent 63 per cent.; Sweden, which spent 53 per cent.; and the United States, which spent 42 per cent. We spend 5 per cent., which is not enough.
Secondly, it is worth reminding the Government that the non-governmental organisations—virtually unanimously, as far as I know—are not in favour of tied aid, considering it in the main more expensive and less effective. They think that it tends to concentrate on large projects which may often be inappropriate. I shall not go over the appropriateness of the Pergau dam project again, but there are other examples in the world: large capital projects have been chosen, not primarily because of attitudes to aid but because the action was commercially driven by the donors, who wanted the work connected with the construction of a large project.
Let me say a little about the question of "sleaze". Conservative Members took great offence from the comments of The Independent on Sunday—
Clique makes millions from aid … Five companies led by Tory loyalists pick up half the cash.….System hurts countries most in need".
The simple answer that the Minister would give is to say that those are the best companies anyway; that there are relatively few companies with the expertise, the knowledge and the track record to undertake such large capital projects abroad. Other Conservative Members will add that, if those companies give money to the Conservative party, that is only their common sense coming to the surface; they would do that naturally.
The Government, however, really must address the problem of patronage, and the link between action and "who you know and who you don't". It is true that most companies would rather give money to the Conservative party than to Labour or the Liberal Democrats; but it is also true that, as a consequence, they have a certain influence with the Government. That was, perhaps, more true for the Labour party in the old days, when it was certainly true that the trade unions—as the Labour party's paymasters—had a certain influence with that party.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What about the British School of Motoring?

Sir Russell Johnston: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is happy with his humour. It is always a good thing to be happy with one's humour. Unfortunately, I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said, but I ask him not to repeat it.
My right hon. Friend made the important point that it would be a good idea to review, or reform, the financing of political parties. That would be for the good of our democracy, and would avoid accusations which, in this case, do not add up to a great deal, but do not look at all good. I think that state financing of political parties lifts suspicion and makes everything clear and above board; that is the case in most of our colleague countries in the European Union.
The Government would be foolish to ignore the unhappiness and concern that exist widely among people who are knowledgeable about, interested in and concerned with overseas aid. I do not think that our record is as good as it should be, and to defend it blindly will get us nowhere.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) made five points, and I shall do the same. I shall talk about the aid and trade provision and arms, the Liberal party and the ATP, alleged company support for the Conservative Government to sweeten aid deals, the behaviour of some of the press recently—particularly as that issue deeply concerns the Malaysian Government—and the lessons to be learnt.
I shall concentrate on the ATP. As many of my hon. Friends have said, it amounts.to only 5 per cent. of our total aid budget, but it is a very important 5 per cent. Aid leads to trade, and trade leads to an increase in manufacturing exports. As Minister for Trade, I am responsible for trying to help British manufacturers to compete around the world.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will have noticed one aspect of the speeches of Opposition Members. Not one —apart from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) mentioned what our competitors do. What happens to the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese and the Americans is of no concern to them. Their aims were summarised in the clever, dissembling speech of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale.
I go round the world with the right hon. Gentleman, and when he is cleverly dissembling on behalf of Britain I will be on his side all the way. I have to say, however, that I think that what he said tonight in terms of innuendo, assertion and suggestion was a disgrace. We are not, in the debate, taking part in some university debating society game about what happens with the major markets for our economic potential. As the hon. Members for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said, we are speaking about thousands of jobs and billions of pounds' worth of business. The right hon. Gentleman lambasted the Malaysians and castigated the Indonesians. Other Opposition Members had a nice little go at Thailand. They are the major markets for British increased exports and trade for the future.
If we wish to get into those markets with our competitors, what do we have to do? We have to establish trust. We have to establish friendships. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) spoke about a cosy friendship between British Ministers and

Malaysian Ministers. I do not know what he meant by that. I spend most of my life trying to make cosy friendships with buyers overseas. That is what I thought my job was.

Mr. Beggs: rose—

Mr. Needham: I will give way in a minute.
One of the ways of doing that is to ensure that aid and trade provision is available to assist infrastructural development. That infrastructural development is so vital to those countries and so vital a base for our manufacturing industry to build on.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister confirm that we in Northern Ireland especially are very dependent on export orders, that those people responsible for careless talk can damage both trade and aid, and that this country would be done a great service by those people who have made unfounded allegations if they would withdraw them and apologise?

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman and I spent many months trying to save GEC Larne because of the problems with Rihand II in India. No one has yet spoken about India or China, by the way. That factory was being taken over, as he knows, by F.G. Wilson, now the largest manufacturer of small generators in the world. Where will it be in the markets that it is trying to sell in, if we continue to suggest to the Governments, and to the people who are doing business, that somehow most of them, if not many of them, are involved in some sleazy, underhand dealing?
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale asked, quite rightly, what the British Government's view is about underhand dealing. That is a perfectly fair question. We do not support underhand dealing. We do not support bribery. We are perfectly sure that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development working party, which is working towards ways of getting rid of corrupt practices, should be supported, but there is no point in our singularly summing up with a solution that is neither workable nor realistic. That simply makes no sense.
What we have to do, as our first and foremost principle, is to ensure that the interests of our aid budget, and the trade that follows from that under the aid and trade provision umbrella, are properly protected in the interests of this country.
If we take the line of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, which is to say that there is a linkage between the ATP budget and the arms sales that we make in those countries, when will we make arms sales to those countries? Should we not give the Indians, the Indonesians, the Malaysians and the Thais the right to self-defence?
Is the argument of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale that we supply arms or that we supply ATP? We cannot do both, because if we do both, the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will link the two. What will be the effect then on the countries to which we are trying to sell? Will they again come to us and give us orders if they are going to be slated and slandered in the press of this country and on the Floor of the House of Commons? Of course they will not.
That brings me to the subject of the Liberal party and arms and ATP. There was an advertisement published this weekend in the national press which said,
We are proud to work in Malaysia.
One of the companies that was advertising was the


Westland Group. What is the view of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and his right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party when it comes to selling helicopters to Malaysia? He is perfectly happy to sell helicopters to Canada. Gracious me, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was shoved off to Canada to speak to his Liberal Democrat friends to save the Westland deal. Of course he did not do it. He did not save it. Then he denied it, but he did not do it. What is the view of the right hon. Member for Yeovil about the selling of helicopters to Malaysia? That is the question to which the people of Yeovil would like to know the answer.
I will tell the House why the people of Yeovil would like to know that. Members of the Liberal party are champions of the defence cause in the constituencies—champions of the defence cause in my constituency—but in Westminster they are champions of the World Development Movement. The Liberal party, as it always does, tries to do one thing in the constituencies and another thing in Parliament.
Let me just say to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale that if, in a few months' time, some of the workers of Westland walk out of the gates on a Friday evening, not with their wage packets but with their P45s in their pockets, they will know where the blame lies.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister knows well the answer that my colleagues would give to that question, which is that it is perfectly proper to seek business overseas, including in defence-related industries, if one is clear about what one is doing, not underhand and not tying it to other secret deals.
The Minister has not answered the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) asked, which is how this weekend the Foreign Secretary admitted that there had been an entanglement between, on the one hand, defence contracts and, on the other hand, aid, while for the past five years in this place and the other place, Ministers have said that there was no link at all. That is the question which he has not answered.

Mr. Needham: I do not think that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was here for much of the debate when those issues were mentioned. I can say one thing to the hon. Gentleman: it is perfectly true to say that the Liberal party is never clear about anything.
The third point that I wanted to make, which leads on from the remarks that I have just made about the Liberal party, arms and ATP, relates to the issue that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber mentioned at the end of his comments, when he showed us that heading from The Independent on Sunday dated 13 February. The article is headed:
Clique makes millions from aid.
I should like to read it to the hon. Gentleman so that we cannot make any mistake about it:
A handful of leading building and engineering companies with close links to the Government and the Conservative Party have been the main beneficiaries of Britain's industrial overseas aid programme, picking up nearly half of the £1.4 bn dispensed since 1978.…
The companies with an inside track on aid are led by Balfour Beatty, the joint contractor on the Pergau dam project in Malaysia. Its parent company, BICC, has since 1980 given £90,000 to Arms for Industry, British United Industrialists and the Economic League—all right-wing groups closely allied to the Tory party.

Over the same period, Balfour Beatty received 21 per cent—nearly £300m—of the Overseas Development Administration's Aid and Trade Provision.
Well, £90,000 over 14 years to three small pressure groups? That works out at £2,000 per year in return for £300 million-worth of business. My goodness—that is value for money.
Perhaps the chairman of the Conservative party should go down to Transport house, speak to Bill Morris and tell him that if he were to cut the millions that he now gives to the Labour party and instead give £2,000 a year to the Fabian Society, the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Labour Co-ordinating Committee, he would lose no influence. He could give the money instead, as one hon. Member said, to John Monks to fund his new Trades Union Congress search for influence. What a ridiculous argument. What a ludicrous argument. The best thing that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber can do is to quote from The Independent on Sunday of two weeks ago about £90,000. What an insult to the Overseas Development Administration officials who are responsible for the way in which the budget is administered. The correspondent involved, Mr. Blackhurst, wisely went to Kuala Lumpur last week to see what effect his article was having. He filed a story this Sunday which stated:
British companies in Malaysia will be starved of business and forced to close their operations down in the years ahead.
Well done Mr. Blackhurst.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister talked of the insult to ODA officials. Does not he recall that the principal accounting officer at the ODA, Sir Timothy Lankester, said that the proposal was not economically viable and was an abuse of overseas aid? Will he therefore explain how £56 million of British taxpayers' money can abused in that way? How can that be justified?

Mr. Needham: I shall come to that argument. The hon. Member has advanced that argument about five times and he repeated himself in his speech.
Mr. Blackhurst may have learnt his lesson, but the editor of The Sunday Times has not. On Sunday, as the editor sat on David Frost's sofa drinking his freshly squeezed orange juice, he said:
I mean, just remember in the 1930s in this country, newspapers did not tell the truth about Nazi Germany because we were told not to upset nice Mr. Hitler".
The one sure way to obtain an order is to compare your client with Adolf Hitler. The editor of The Sunday Times continued:
So, I think we've just got to be careful on this and the fact is that in building this dam in Malaysia a quarter of a billion pounds worth of British taxpayers' money was used as a sweetener to then get the arms deal for 1.3 billion.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West made an effort to make the best of a bad show and referred to a letter from Lord Younger in June 1988. That letter formed no part of the arrangements thereafter between the British Government and Malaysia. That is not the point, however. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State showed that only 1.2 per cent. of the aid budget will go on the Pergau dam in any single year.
The editor of The Sunday Times continued:
Now, there is a legitimate matter of British taxpayers interest in this. Was this the proper use of money, especially when all the technical advice from our own officials said this dam was useless".
Even the hon. Member for Monklands, West did not go so far as to say that the dam was useless. There is nothing


more patronising or arrogant than for Opposition Members to suggest that the Malaysian Government and people are so foolish that they have no idea what they need and want. The hon. Gentleman said, "Ah, but we could have got a combined cycle gas-fired power station if we had not done this." But that is not the case, because, as my hon. Friends have said, the Malaysian Government would not have accepted such a power station. As one of my hon. Friends said, they would not have accepted it because they wanted to build the dam in a part of the country with little development, and because combined cycle gas-fired turbines would have involved more imports of goods and materials, whereas the building of a dam involves much more local labour and local content.
If we do not want the business, it is no good then saying, "If they had done what Sir Tim Lankester said, we could have determined that the Indonesians would give us what we want". As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, that is neo-colonialism of the worst sort.
The editor of The Sunday Times said not only that the dam was useless, but that it would
produce electricity for only two hours a day.
That would make it the biggest lavatory bowl in the world: it would flush for two hours and take 22 to fill up. That is a ludicrous comment on the workings of hydro-electricity. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, the dam was designed for peak load at peak hours. The editor continued:
it would actually increase the price of electricity to ordinary Malaysians".
How could it do that when it was powered by water and the British Government were providing the aid for it? He went on to say:
Why in our overseas defence … budget are we giving aid to Malaysia? I mean, the budget's meant to be for the poorest countries in the world. Malaysia's one of the booming tiger economies of the Pacific basin.
The income per head in Malaysia in 1988 was $1,780 a year. That was well within any limit on aid to developing countries. It is one eighth of the income per head that this country enjoys. Are the hon. Member for Monklands, West and the editor of the The Sunday Times saying assistance to Malaysia was provided when it did not deserve aid? Every other country in the world was supporting Malaysia.

Sir David Steel: The Minister does not have much time, so if he wants to reply to the editor of The Sunday Times he should send him a letter and reply to the debate in the House.

Mr. Needham: My reading of the newspapers and the reports from Malaysia suggests that the comments and reports of the editor of The Sunday Times, backed up by the right hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members, have led to the break-off of relations with Malaysia, threatened our relations with Indonesia and Thailand and could put a vast number of jobs and industries in this country at long-term risk.
I had always accepted that we had to compete with the Germans, French, Italians and Japanese. I had not realised that we would at the same time have to deal with the distortions of some sections of the press, the hypocrisy of the Liberal party and the patronising neo-colonialism of the Labour party. The Conservative party is the only party in this country that represents the interests of our trade and industry and British jobs in British factories. I ask the House to reject the motion.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 305.

Division No. 149]
[7.17 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Allen, Graham
Harvey, Nick


Alton, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnes, Harry
Heppell, John


Barron, Kevin
Hinchliffe, David


Battle, John
Hoey, Kate


Bayley, Hugh
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Home Robertson, John


Betts, Clive
Hood, Jimmy


Boyes, Roland
Hoon, Geoffrey


Bradley, Keith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hoyle, Doug


Byers, Stephen
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Caborn, Richard
Hutton, John


Callaghan, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jamieson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clapham, Michael
Keen, Alan


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Coffey, Ann
Lewis, Terry


Connarty, Michael
Llwyd, Elfyn


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Corston, Ms Jean
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cox, Tom
McAllion, John


Cryer, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Cummings, John
McCartney, Ian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Macdonald, Calum


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McFall, John


Dafis, Cynog
McKelvey, William


Dalyell, Tam
Mackinlay, Andrew


Darling, Alistair
Maclennan, Robert


Davidson, Ian
McMaster, Gordon


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Madden, Max


Dixon, Don
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Dowd, Jim
Mahon, Alice


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marek, Dr John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Enright, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Etherington, Bill
Martlew, Eric


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Meacher, Michael


Fatchett, Derek
Meale, Alan


Flynn, Paul
Michael, Alun


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Galloway, George
Milburn, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Miller, Andrew


Garrett, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


George, Bruce
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gerrard, Neil
Mudie, George


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Godsiff, Roger
Pickthall, Colin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pike, Peter L.


Gordon, Mildred
Pope, Greg


Graham, Thomas
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Primarolo, Dawn


Gunnell, John
Redmond, Martin


Hall, Mike
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hanson, David
Rooker, Jeff


Hardy, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)






Short, Clare
Wareing, Robert N


Simpson, Alan
Welsh, Andrew


Skinner, Dennis
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wigley, Dafydd


Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Wilson, Brian


Spearing, Nigel
Worthington, Tony


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wray, Jimmy


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Dr Tony


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dennis
Mr. Andy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.


Tyler, Paul



Wallace, James





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Day, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dorrell, Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ancram, Michael
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan, Alan


Ashby, David
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Bob


Atkins, Robert
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Elletson, Harold


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baldry, Tony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Beggs, Roy
Faber, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fabricant, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fishburn, Dudley


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Booth, Hartley
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bowden, Andrew
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bowis, John
French, Douglas


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gale, Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
Gallie, Phil


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, Sir George


Bright, Graham
Garnier, Edward


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gill, Christopher


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gillan, Cheryl


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Burns, Simon
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burt, Alistair
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butler, Peter
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carttiss, Michael
Grylls, Sir Michael


Cash, William
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hague, William


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hanley, Jeremy


Coe, Sebastian
Hannam, Sir John


Colvin, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Congdon, David
Harris, David


Conway, Derek
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hayes, Jerry


Couchman, James
Heald, Oliver


Cran, James
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hendry, Charles


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hicks, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.





Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Horam, John
Ottaway, Richard


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pickles, Eric


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jack, Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rathbone, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Richards, Rod


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robathan, Andrew


Key, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knox, Sir David
Sackville, Tom


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Legg, Barry
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lidington, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lightbown, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Stewart, Allan


Maitland, Lady Olga
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Sweeney, Walter


Marland, Paul
Sykes, John


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Thomason, Roy


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mills, Iain
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Moate, Sir Roger
Tracey, Richard


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trend, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Moss, Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Needham, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)






Waterson, Nigel
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Watts, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Wells, Bowen
Wolfson, Mark


Whitney, Ray
Wood, Timothy


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Willetts, David
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Wilshire, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the Main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House strongly supports the Government's substantial aid programme aimed at sustainable economic and social development, particularly in the poorest countries, which draws on the skills and excellence of British institutions, companies and non-governmental organisations, and creates significant jobs and wealth in the United Kingdom.

Investment in Education

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Don Foster: beg to move,
That this House, recognising the importance of high quality education provision to all, regrets that, as a result of the policies of Her Majesty's Government, there is growing chaos and division within the education service; is saddened that one of the many adverse consequences has been reduced morale and increased stress among those working in schools; deplores the growing backlog of repairs and maintenance of educational buildings, the increased drop-out rate of students in higher education and the erosion of democratic accountability for education; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to increase investment in education by at least the equivalent of one penny of income tax, and to reconstruct the partnership of parents, teachers, governors, local education authorities and central government as an essential ingredient in achieving high quality education.
This is the second time since Christmas that the Liberal Democrats have initiated a debate on education, and that is a reflection of the importance that we place on it. Investment in the education and training of the nation's citizens is the most important investment that we can make to ensure a successful future for our country. We want an education service that enables each individual to achieve his or her potential, by providing a first-class education for all, in which quality is the key.
To that end my party, despite the accusations in the Government amendment, has a well-developed and well-defined set of education policies, which are to be found in our document, "Excellence for All". Our top priority for additional education spending is a significant expansion of nursery education. As other recent debates have highlighted, investment in nursery education makes sound educational and economic sense.
Our policies cover all aspects of the education service, including, for example, radical policies on the development of a curriculum for people between the ages of 14 and 19, an alternative to the Government's testing and assessment regime, the establishment of a general teaching council, and much more.
The expansion of nursery education will have an initial cost, as will our plans to increase the availability of books and equipment in our schools, and to provide more support for special educational needs. I do not deny—no doubt this will be stated by Conservative Members—that in recent years the Government have increased expenditure on education. However, we believe that much more is needed. That is why my party is pledged to invest an extra penny of income tax on education to pay for our plans. The use of that increased investment will be clear for all to see.
Our policies to ensure excellence for all are in marked contrast to Government policies. Our motion addresses the two key crises facing the education service—the failure to invest sufficient resources in education and the break-up of the partnership established by the Education Act 1944.
I hope that the Secretary of State and other Ministers will wake up and notice what is going on outside their comfy sanctuary in Sanctuary buildings. From those buildings, and from their previous offices in York house, Ministers' actions have led directly to the chaos and division in our education service. The 17 major education reforms that have taken place over the past 15 years—yet


another is on its way—coupled with a failure to make the necessary investment, have created a complete mess, for which the Government alone are to blame. That mess has led to the lowering of morale throughout the service, and to a loss of direction.
The House does not have to take my word for it. Last week, a committee member of the Oxford University Conservative association said in a letter to The Daily Telegraph:
Mr. Patten's attitude to education has betrayed a staggering capacity for incompetence and ineptitude".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Just for the record, I should make it clear that the letter was written by somebody claiming to be a member of the Oxford University Conservative association, but that the chair, chairperson, or chairlady of that organisation and other responsible officers subsequently wrote and corrected the record.

Mr. Foster: The letter stands on the record as coming from that individual, and it is known to be well supported by many other people in Oxford university, as demonstrated by recent statements about the Secretary of State's fellowship.
In response to a recent National Association of Head Teachers survey covering almost 200 schools, one head teacher said:
resourcing is but one aspect of a deteriorating situation. Teacher morale, public respect, a sense of partnership with DFE, the wondering whether anyone in high places has ever been inside a state school are all major factors which, unless corrected, will see the education system in this country in terminal decline.
Let us consider the effects of underfunding. Nearly two years ago, in my maiden speech, I said:
Schools must choose between sacking teachers and doing without books, colleges must choose between decent accommodation and up-to-date equipment and universities between overcrowded lecture theatres and empty bank accounts."— [Official Report, 12 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 522–23.]
Since then, much has changed—sadly, for the worse. Never has there been greater need for increased investment in our education service.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What would the hon. Gentleman say to Dorset county council, whose members said exactly, almost word for word, what he has just said about educational investment'? But as soon as they got into power, they cancelled a new school in Crossways, in my constituency, for which £800,000 had already been found by the Conservative administration, cancelled the expansion of Wey Valley school and of Purbeck school, and broke all their promises to the electorate.

Mr. Foster: I do not know all the details of Dorset's education policy, but I can be certain that the members of my party on Dorset county council will do everything they can to increase educational provision in that county—unlike the Conservatives in Suffolk, for example, who only last night proposed in their budget debate the abolition of all nursery education and a cut of £1 million in their capital education programme.

Ms Estelle Morris: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has already mentioned nursery education three times, and said how much importance he places on it. Does he not agree, however,

that the words often uttered by Liberal Democrats in the House are not matched by action in the local authorities that their party controls?
Can he explain why Liberal authorities appear three times in the bottom 18 local authorities for the provision of nursery education, why Gloucestershire, where Liberal Democrats share control with Conservatives, is at the bottom of the table, and why, in the Isle of Wight, which the party has controlled for years, only seven children in every 100 are offered a nursery
place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. There is not a great deal of time left for the debate, and many hon. Members want to catch my eye. Long interventions do not help.

Mr. Foster: If the hon. Lady were to examine the press release on nursery education by her party, she might update her figures a little for the past 12 months. If she did that, she would discover that the Liberal Democratic party's position on support for nursery education has changed dramatically. She should also bear in mind the fact that, in many of the authorities to which she has referred, Liberal Democrat influence is relatively recent.
Liberal Democrats have had to pick up a considerable amount of mess and a number of problems. The hon. Lady represents a Birmingham constituency, so it is a bit rich for her to talk about education expenditure, because her local education authority has diverted £40 million from education funding to prestige buildings.
Never mind that; the argument about the need for increased investment has never been more urgent. That was demonstrated only last Friday, when the headline for the front-page story in The Times Educational Supplement was:
Schools caught in the jobs-or-pay trap".
Even this year's modest teachers' pay award—

Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not customary for Members to declare their interests in connection with a subject before launching into their speeches? Is it not remiss of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) not to declare his interest in two specific items that are declared in the Register of Members' Interests but have not been mentioned in the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are quite aware of the rules of the House, and that is a matter for them.

Mr. Foster: As I did not intend to promote the claims of either of the two teacher unions that I serve as an adviser, and as I have already made clear my involvement with the two unions on previous occasions, I did not think it necessary to restate my interests. However, if it will help the hon. Lady, I am more than happy to put on the record yet again my involvement with the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the National Union of Teachers.
As a result of the Government's unwillingness to fund the latest pay round, The Times Educational Supplement contacted 50 local education authorities. Of those, only four are now able to increase their budgets. Those authorities able to fund the award in full will have to do so by cutting other departments and services, but in many authorities it will be mean cuts to the schools' budget.
For example, in Leicestershire, schools will have to find £1.6 million to meet the pay bill, and in Shropshire they


will have to find £200,000. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that another head teacher said recently in the NAHT survey:
We are running a medium-sized business on peanuts and goodwill.
It is interesting that, when the Government want to find money to suit their own purposes, they are perfectly able to do so. We know about the increased funding to grant-maintained schools, we know about the £200,000 spent, for instance, on advertising grant-maintained status. It is also strange to note that, in February, Buckinghamshire faced cuts of more than £2 million to its education budget, and head teachers were warned to expect cuts of 2 per cent. to their school budgets. Now, the only Tory—

Mr. David Lidington: rose—

Mr. Foster: I shall finish the point. Now, the only Tory shire county left since the election in the past May has, surprise, surprise, a
better-than-expected spending limit set by ministers.

Mr. Lidington: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that standard spending assessments in England and Wales are not skewed simply to benefit Buckinghamshire. The county council simulated—prudently, as it does each year—a series of analyses of what grant might be forthcoming from Government, so that it plans for a good outcome and for a bad. It is sensible stewardship—exactly what one would expect from a prudent county council such as Buckinghamshire.

Mr. Foster: On the basis of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, Buckinghamshire is also an authority which goes round scaremongering all those involved in the education service—hardly in the best interests of that service.
I have referred twice already, and I shall again, to the NAHT survey, because it brings to light perhaps the most up-to-date evidence of the physical impact of continued underfunding in our schools. Almost 70 per cent. of schools from that survey were planning to set aside less money for capitation in 1993–94, over half were putting off decorating buildings, and two thirds were planning to minimise spending on repair and maintenance. That backlog of repair and maintenance to school buildings across the nation is estimated to be more than £4 billion, with another backlog of £1 billion in further education.
The picture in higher education is especially grim. If one updates the information from the Pearce review for universities and the Hunter report for the former polytechnics, it reveals a need for £2 billion-worth of capital investment in our higher education institutions. There is an urgent need for £400 million to be spent solely on health, safety and legal requirements. That £400 million alone—not the £2 billion—will not be covered by the increased capital expenditure of £322 million announced by the Chancellor for next year.
Even the greater increase of 20 per cent. over the next three years is too little and too late and, of course, does not take into account the capital repair needs in Scotland or Wales. The repair and maintenance backlog seems set to grow.
The House will recall that, in December, the Secretary of State boasted of the expansion of the number of students

in higher education. He told us that it was equivalent to 12 new universities. Yet, when pressed to explain whether the equivalent amount of capital investment had been made, answer came there none—hardly surprising when one considers that the expenditure per student in further and higher education has fallen by 22 per cent. since 1979.
The result is clear for all to see—overcrowded lecture theatres, inadequate supplies of books and equipment, a growing backlog of repair and maintenance, falling morale among lecturers and high drop-out rates among students.
As I have said, it is not only the failure to provide sufficient investment that has led to a crisis in education. The Government have systematically torn up the education partnership created by the Education Act 1944, and have put in place the flawed dogma of the free market, setting school against school, teacher against teacher and parent against parent.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds, the Rt. Rev. David Constant, said in a letter to governors of his diocesan-maintained schools in the past month:
Sustaining education partnerships at local and national levels is of great importance. At present it is not clear how that can be achieved with the new funding agencies in place of the elected local authorities. Moreover one policy clearly underlying current Government thinking is that market forces are intended to regulate the pattern of education provision. The Bishops' conference has consistently warned against such an emphasis because it considers regulation by market forces to be quite wrong for a service like education…I continue to have certain reservations about GM schools, arising from inequalities of resourcing, from the emergence of a two tier system of schools and from the loss of democratically elected local regulatory and planning bodies.
That goes to the heart of Liberal Democrat concern over the break-up of the partnership in the education service. How can there be an effective education service with 24,000 quasi-independent schools all vying with one another in the marketplace?
Liberal Democrats do not accept as the basis for an education service one which has at its heart the assumption that some children will fail. We find it difficult to accept the concept of market forces applying to education, when we know that the practical reality is that the vast majority of children have no choice whatever about the school that they will attend.

Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious point. May I take it from his criticism of the operation of market forces in education that his party is committed to getting rid of the policies of open enrolment and local financial management, which, far more than GM schools, have given rise to that operation?

Mr. Foster: We have clearly said, as I shall outline in a little more detail in a second, that we believe that there is a great deal of merit in giving more power and responsibility to individual schools—but not to the point at which all the decisions are made by them. That is why we resent the break-up of local government, which has, and should have, a responsibility in determining strategic planning matters, for example, which would take into account the issue of which pupils go to which school and so on. Those are the issues which should be determined by more people than those at the individual school.
Another aspect of the break-up of the educational partnership is the erosion of democratic accountability, not least through the continued attacks, as I have mentioned, on local government, but through the centralisation of power into the hands of the Secretary of State.
The most obvious manifestation of that is the growing frequency with which it is impossible to find out who is in charge and who should take responsibility. Many hon. Members will be increasingly familiar with the answer to parliamentary questions, in which a Minister replies that the issue is no longer a matter for him, but for some, usually unelected, body. For example, try to get a Minister to answer a question about the Office for Standards in Education.
To give another example, when some lecturers at a further education college in my constituency recently went on strike over new contracts of employment, I asked the Minister to intervene to establish a process of arbitration. He said that he was unable to do so and added:
You don't pay a dog and then bark yourself".
The Further Education Funding Council also said that it had no powers to intervene. That is strange when one considers that, when it suits him, the Minister can announce a massive holdback of £50 million-worth of grants to colleges, unless they introduce new or flexible contracts for new staff.
In the new mess and uncertainty created by the Government, even the appointment and dismissal of head teachers is confused. School governors have all the power, but no responsibility, while local education authorities have all the responsibility, but no power. More and more power is being delegated to quangos. We all recall the debate a few days ago.
I was able to reveal in the past week that, in the current year, more than 55 per cent. of the Department of Education's spending will be through undemocratic and often remote quangos. That is set to increase at an alarming rate, as the Funding Agency for Schools assumes responsibility for GM schools. All too often, those Government quangos are an opportunity for the Tories to featherbed their friends, as the debate last week showed.
I give the example of the Funding Agency for Schools, whose membership was announced last week. The chairman is Sir Christopher Benson, who will be on a salary of £34,430 for two days a week. Sir Christopher is also the chairman of Sun Alliance, which has reportedly given £280,000 to Tory party funds over the past six years. That is bad enough—I suppose that we are getting used to the Tory party rewarding its friends—but I can also reveal that Sir Christopher's company will benefit from the grant-maintained sector.
Sir Robert Balchin, another member of the Funding Agency for Schools, as well as being the Tory party chairman for south-east England—clearly, he is fond of lost causes—is also the chairman of Grant Maintained Schools Mutual, an insurance scheme for grant-maintained schools. Who will provide the insurance for members of the mutual scheme? None other than Sun Alliance International. Clearly, Sun Alliance's contributions to the Tory party have had the desired effect. The chairman of Sun Alliance has been given a lucrative part-time post on a new quango, and his company is set to make more money.

Mr. Gary Streeter: rose—

Mr. Foster: I shall finish my point and then give way.
That is further evidence of the Government greasing the palms of their friends with taxpayers' money. But Sun Alliance shareholders should be warned, because grant-maintained schools are not a safe bet.

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for reading the National Union of Teachers briefing note to the House. Does he accept that, with local management of schools, 85 per cent. of budgets are delegated to schools, giving them power and responsibility? Does he accept that, with grant-maintained schools, we are giving power and responsibilities to parents and governors? Perhaps the fact that we have deprived the hon. Gentleman's pet teacher union of power in the past 15 years is making him bitter. Is he bitter because the Government have rightly broken the partnership that existed between teacher unions and the Government when Labour were in government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat for the last time that there is limited time available. Many hon. Members want to catch my eye, and long interventions do not help.

Mr. Foster: I shall respond briefly. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect when he quotes the figure of 85 per cent. The Government intend to increase delegation to individual schools to 90 per cent. In response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), I made the point about our view of the role and importance of local democratically accountable bodies—the local education authorities.
As I said, Sun Alliance shareholders should be warned that grant-maintained schools are not a safe bet. That is certainly the case because, as everyone now knows, the policy is failing. The evidence is not simply in the latest opt-out figures which show that, of 13 ballots in the past month, only four schools voted to place themselves in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Funding Agency for Schools.
More immediate evidence can be seen in the wording of the Government's amendment, accusing my party of underhand campaigning against grant-maintained school ballots. The Secretary of State claimed exactly the same thing at the Tory party local government conference at the weekend. He even quoted one of our campaign packs, which said of the campaigns against opting out: "Give open Liberal Democrat support". In accusing us of being underhand, the Secretary of State quoted from a document that clearly contained that phrase. The signs of desperation are everywhere.
As I explained in a letter to the Secretary of State last week, Liberal Democrats do not believe that opposition should be merely party political. The issue not only crosses party lines but involves the whole community. If the Secretary of State wants examples of underhand tactics during a grant-maintained school ballot, perhaps he should consider what happened in my constituency.
During a parents' meeting, a governor in favour of opt-out told the parents that, without grant-maintained status, the school would have to lose three teachers, and he even went on to name them. It was only after the ballot was over—fortunately, with a large no vote—that the governors admitted that they were talking through their hats and that no redundancies would be needed while the school was still within the local education authority.
Clearly, the Government have lost the argument over grant-maintained schools. Despite an expensive advertising campaign, double funding, and an offer of technology status, the Secretary of State is beginning to talk about forcing secondary schools to opt out, even against parental


wishes. So much for his much-vaunted parental choice. Frankly, the only person guilty of underhand tactics is the Secretary of State.
I hope that I have demonstrated the way in which Government policies are leading to chaos and division in our education service. I have outlined ways in which Liberal Democrats would set out to reverse the current situation. I have also referred to our belief in the need for increased investment in the education service.
Of course, I have acknowledged that the Government have increased expenditure on education. However, the National Commission on Education agrees that it is not enough. In its final report, the commission said:
as a nation we need to spend more on education and training…It is our conviction that in the long term the improvements in education and training that will result from this increase in expenditure will lead to improvements in the economy and benefits to society with consequent improvements in Government finances.
Liberal Democrats share that view, and the vision of providing an excellent education service for all.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its far sighted education reforms which are driving up standards and giving more responsibility to schools, more choice to parents and more opportunities to our young people; believes that the Government's commitment to a.high quality education service is further demonstrated by the record sums it is spending; notes that the superficial policies advanced by the Liberal Democratic Party bear remarkable similarity to the policies advanced by Her Majesty's Opposition; further notes that those policies appear to revolve around reversing all the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to raise standards and increase choice; notes the admission by the Liberal Democratic Party that it is a party committed to raising taxes, yet condemns its inability to demonstrate any clear linkage between a demand for more income tax and a well developed and defined set of educational policies on which additional tax revenues are to be spent; and believes that the Liberal Democrats' commitment to education would be better shown by ceasing its practice of campaigning in an underhand fashion against balllots of parents for grant maintained status, which this House utterly deplores.'.
This has been one of those tantalising debates where the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) started with a bit of a flourish—or at least the best flourish that he could manage in the circumstances—and then disappointed the House as he went on because none of the substance that we had eagerly anticipated came into being. The whole structure and edifice is built around the slogan on which the hon. Gentleman's party campaigned in the last election—"A penny on income tax". Incidentally, they lost votes in that election.
One penny on income tax would yield some £1.6 billion. That sounds like a lot of money if one says it quickly or slowly. However, the interesting thing is that that tantalising increase in education expenditure should be set against the fact that in the past few years—to take as an example the period 1991–92 to 1993–94—education spending in England has risen as a matter of fact and history from £24 billion a year to nearly £30 billion a year. In other words, the Government have already presided over an increase of some £6 billion, dwarfing the sort of increase that Liberal Democrats have promised.

Mr. Michael Stephen: My hon. Friend mentioned the idea of the Liberal Democrats putting one penny on income tax to finance their education expenditure. Does he have any idea how many pennies the Liberal Democrats would have to put on income tax to finance all the other schemes with which they tempted the electorate?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend tempts me, but I suspect that if I go down that road I will get into some trouble in terms of the subject of the debate. However, it is a fair point which we should all bear in mind when we discuss what the promise may well produce.
Let us examine the context again, because we are up against a background of historical increases in education expenditure of some 18 per cent. in real terms over the period of this Government. Those increases go right across the spectrum to cover school expenditure, higher education expenditure and capital expenditure. All have had real increases. I say that in all humility and against the background that it has not yet been proven that there is any necessary causal connection between an increased level of education expenditure and an increased quality of output. Quality of output is related not to expenditure but to something quite different.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: How do the Government justify spending £750,000 on refurbishing a four-year-old building for the Funding Agency for Schools? That works out at just under £6,000 for each of the 130 people who will work in the building, compared with only £47 in capital expenditure for each child in North Yorkshire schools. Is not it more important to get rid of outside toilets and temporary classrooms? Does not education take place in schools, not in office blocks? Will the Minister do something to stop the profligate waste of £750,000 on a new office block?

Mr. Forth: The maintenance of schools is entirely a matter for local education authorities which have responsibility for them. If the hon. Gentleman's education authority is letting its children down, that is very sad, but it is not a matter directly for me. If the hon. Gentleman is criticising the Secretary of State for providing decent working conditions for public employees, I expect that the unions, to which I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman is slavishly adherent, will have a word or two to say about that.

Mr. Bayley: rose—

Mr. Forth: I will not give way again. The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, and I have given him an answer. I am proud that we are providing decent working conditions for public employees, and I hope that we always do that. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. No seated interventions, please.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Member for Bath did not at any point let us in on the secret of how the £1.6 billion was to be spent. The truth is that if one looks at some of the subject headings on which he touched, but did not elaborate, one will find the reason why he did not go into more detail.
For example, the hon. Gentleman referred to pre-five nursery education. I shall return to that in more detail in a


moment, but I shall mention it briefly. Providing nursery education in the full sense of the term for the pre-fives would cost about £1 billion a year.
The replacement of student loans by grants—a subject which the hon. Gentleman did not mention, but I should be surprised if it were far from his mind—and the return to a full-scale, non-means tested grant regime would cost £1 billion a year for the number of students which I am proud are now in higher and further education. The hon. Gentleman mentioned capital and building programmes, and skipped across figures which are not unadjacent to £2 billion in total. I think he mentioned £400 million for one sector alone.
The hon. Gentleman also skipped lightly across the matter of books and equipment, which was mentioned but not in detail, and increased support for special educational needs. I know that it is a long time since the Liberals have been in government, and I know that the value of money has changed since then, but stretching £1.6 billion to cover even a fraction of the headings upon which the hon. Gentleman touched but did not detail is typically and liberally irresponsible.

Mr. John McFall: The Minister mentioned that it has been long time since the Liberals were in power. Is not it a long time since 1973 when the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, made an unambiguous statement about nursery education and said that it would come along? Is not Britain, 20 years later, almost at the bottom of the league in European terms? Does not the Minister think that that is art example of the Government's hypocrisy and humbug? Should not they do something to assist nursery provision, and to live with the comments that Baroness Thatcher made when she was Minister of Education in 1973?

Mr. Forth: I have always tried to live by everything that Baroness Thatcher ever said. It has been one of my lifelong aspirations, and it is one which I still strive to achieve.
The hon. Gentleman has led me to the subject of pre-five provision, and it may become one of the great shibboleths of our age if we are not careful. Opposition Members attribute all possibilities and all solutions to the provision of nursery education for those aged three and four years old. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs Taylor) will no doubt do it shortly, and I make that prediction with utter confidence.
The reality is that the value of that provision in education terms has yet to be demonstrated. It has yet to be shown that providing nursery education for three and four-year-olds will advantage those pupils throughout their school careers. I will go further, and say that some of the local education authorities that have a long-established nursery education provision in the present system come out consistently with the worst key stage 1 results, and the worst GCSE results.
The repeated assertions that there is a direct causal connection between the universal provision of nursery education by the taxpayer and an improved educational outcome throughout the mandatory school years has yet to be demonstrated. There may be other advantages, bin that is not necessarily one.

Mr. David Jamieson: Hats the Minister costed the Prime Minister's recent proposal for universal nursery education?

Mr. Forth: The Prime Minister made no such proposals. [Interruption.] I have discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, and I will share that conversation with the hon. Gentleman if he will let me. The Prime Minister made clear that he believes that a properly structured pre-five provision is something to which we should be moving when it is justified and when resources allow.
My right hon. Friend has made that perfectly clear and asked the Secretary of State to institute a proper inquiry into the matter. That is now being undertaken, and the results will be available to the Prime Minister in due course.
There are many other issues that that investigation will want to cover. Those issues have not been answered, although the hon. Lady may well do so in a moment. I will look forward to it if she does. Will the pre-five provision for nursery education be mandatory or optional? Would it be all day or part of the day? Would all the teachers who were involved be graduates? What would be the capital and building implications of the provisions? What about the transport provisions? Have those matters been taken into account?
I can tell the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) that we are talking about a figure not unadjacent to £1 billion a year if all those matters are taken into account and the fullest possible provision is made.
Of course, the matter should be considered, and it may well have been, but the hon. Member for Bath did not let us into the secret. The matters must be looked at, as do all others, as matters of priority. If one had £1 billion to spend, which aspect of education would one spend it on? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me.

Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful for what the Minister said. There is a clear willingness now from the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to undertake that necessary detailed costing. That gives some encouragement for the future.
The figures to which the Minister refers are similar to those we have suggested. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that savings would be made in the 40,000 jobs created by the introduction of nursery education for all. Would not that reduce the cost somewhat?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman must take careful account of the relationship that exists between his regime and the successful and flourishing pre-school playgroup movement. That movement does excellent work for the pre-fives and may well be jeopardised by the regime that I suspect the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
The hon. Gentleman made great play during his speech of a concept which he called the break-up of the 1944 partnership. That sounded pretty good and statesmanlike. I suspect however, that he really meant that he regretted the passing of the LEA monopoly grip on education provision, and that he rather regretted the passing of the drab uniformity of comprehensive education provision. I suspect also that he somehow resented the fact that our education system is being increasingly opened up in terms of choice and diversity, as outlined in my right hon. Friend's excellent White Paper two years ago.
The Liberal Democrats may have lost touch with their philosophy and their original intellectual justification and beliefs, because Liberals no longer welcome freedom of choice and diversity in education. They want to hark back to a lack of choice in terms of local education authority


monopolies and comprehensive education. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman hinted at this, but he again did not spell it out.
The hon. Gentleman also harked back to the rather incestuous inspection regime that we used to have, under which local education authorities inspected themselves. He went further, and seemed to imply that the excellent new independent Ofsted inspection regime was not to his liking. None of these subjects was detailed in any way, and they were all left hovering in the background. We did have enough of a flavour from what the hon. Gentleman said to realise that he is not in favour of them.

Mr. James Wallace: The Minister talks about inspectors inspecting themselves. Does he accept that, in the preparation of the five to 14 curriculum in Scotland, a large part was devised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools, which goes into schools to inspect the curriculum which it set for itself. How are the inspectors to come to an objective assessment of whether any shortcomings are due to the failure of teaching or to the failure of their proposals?

Mr. Forth: It is not for me to explore the mysteries of the Scottish education system, which is the prerogative of my colleagues in the Scottish Office. I am sure that they will have taken due note of the point made by the hon. Gentleman, and they may well want to get in touch with him. I do not want to stray from my modest responsibilities.

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are regularly told by Conservative Members that this is a United Kingdom Parliament, and this is a United Kingdom debate. Is not it common courtesy that a Scottish Office Minister be here to deal with any Scottish matters which might arise?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are here to answer the terms of the debate which the hon. Member for Bath raised. As far as I can recall, he did not mention a word about Scotland, and I was listening rather carefully. It is a well-known tradition here that Ministers do not even attempt to answer on behalf of their colleagues in other Departments. I have told the hon. Gentleman that his words will have been noted by my colleague in the Scottish Office. I am sure that my colleague will do him the courtesy of reading what he has said, and may well answer him.

Dr. Robert Spink: Could I bring my hon. Friend back to the debate, which is on investment in education? Is he aware that Essex county local education authority, now run by a Liberal-Labour coalition, refuses to spend even to the Government's standing spending assessment set for education? It is putting money collected this year from council tax payers in my constituency into reserves, instead of spending it and investing it in education for our children. What does my hon. Friend think about that? Is not it raw hypocrisy from the Liberal party?

Mr. Forth: That excellent example draws to the attention of the House that Opposition Members will find it increasingly difficult, if they even want to attempt to do

so, to defend the actions of local education authorities that their friends control. There is an increasingly wide gulf between the promises made in the pre-election frenzy of little more than a year ago and the reality that we are seeing on the ground in local education authorities. That applies equally to authorities that are controlled by the Liberal party or some unholy coalition of Opposition parties. Opposition Members will have to face the increasing embarrassment, if they dare, of attempting to defend what their authorities said.
I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion fairly quickly because I know that others want to speak in this regrettably short debate. A few words were said by the hon. Member for Bath about grant-maintained schools. As usual, Opposition Members do not know whether to be dismissive or fearful of grant-maintained schools. They have never been able to make up their minds whether the growing grant-maintained school sector is something to be ignored because it is irrelevant or an enormous threat which will subvert the whole education system.
We now have a healthy, successful, confident and growing grant-maintained sector powered by parental ballots which, even now, are holding up in terms of voting. Some 70 or 80 per cent. of parents vote yes when the ballot takes place, with excellent turnouts. More than half a million pupils are now educated in grant-maintained schools. More than half a million parents have voted yes in ballots.
If Opposition Members want to threaten the grant-maintained sector, that is a matter for their judgment. Conservative Members are increasingly proud of what grant-maintained schools are achieving in providing real choice for parents about the future of a school and in admissions of their children. We are also proud of the quality of provision that grant-maintained schools have demonstrated that they are capable of making. They have broken out of the drab uniformity to which I referred earlier.

Mr. Bayley: The Minister justified earlier in his speech the spending of £0.75 million on the office headquarters of the Funding Agency for Schools because there should be good conditions for employees to work in. Does he believe that there should be equally good conditions for children in both grant-maintained and local authority schools?

Mr. Forth: Yes, of course I do. That is why we make such large capital provision each year and expect local education authorities to play their full part in setting their priorities so that they are able to make proper provision for school buildings. Many local education authorities have demonstrated over the years that they are capable within the budgets that they are given and raise locally of making such provision in both capital and revenue terms.
The interesting thing is that there is no relationship between the amount of money spent per pupil and the educational outcomes in one education authority compared with another. Opposition Members' obsession with the idea that if we simply throw enough money at education all will be well is entirely divorced from the truth. Quality will come from a combination of the national curriculum, objective testing of schools—the hon. Member for Bath hinted that he did not approve of it, but did not elaborate —Ofsted, the independent inspectorate, which we have set


up and which has our full and unequivocal support, and the element of competition and choice in education of which the Opposition seem to disapprove so much.
It is a combination of such factors, properly supported by finance, as I outlined at the beginning of my brief remarks, with the full support of the Department for Education and the Government, which will continue to deliver improving and increasing quality in schools. It is not some return to previous regimes. It is not some dropping of all the policies that we have put in place, as the hon. Member for Bath constantly hinted. I suspect that we shall hear some more of that from Opposition Members as the evening proceeds.
I utterly reject all the terms of the motion before the House tonight. I hope that in my few remarks I have persuaded hon. Members to reject the motion when we come to vote on it later.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am pleased that we are having this debate, however brief it may be. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), I am happy to declare my interest first as a parent—that is the overriding interest that I should declare—and secondly an interest that I share with the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) as an adviser to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
It is interesting that both the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats and the Minister spent some time discussing nursery education. The Opposition take it as a mark of success that we have placed nursery education so high up the agenda that the other parties just cannot ignore that vital issue. The Minister is not quite sure which argument to rehearse. He is not sure whether to tell us that nursery education has no educational merit or that the Government will provide it when resources allow. Obviously, his discussions with the Prime Minister have not been completed. I am not sure who will win at the end of the day.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made many remarks that I welcomed. Indeed, at times I felt that he had been reading the Labour party's green paper on education, with his emphasis on partnership and accountability. I hope that we shall have many other occasions to discuss our proposals.
This evening, I want to take on board some of the important issues that arise from the motion and from the Government's amendment. One of the main problems that we face in education today—apart from the Secretary of State, who I am sorry is not on the Front Bench this evening—

Mr. Win Griffiths: He is playing truant.

Mrs. Taylor: He is truanting again.
One of the main problems is the priorities that the Government have set. Government decisions on education seem to have three main themes. The first is that resources are allocated on the basis of Conservative political correctness, not educational need. Time and again, Ministers do not show their interest in the quality of education received by every child in the country. Their obsession with political funding of education is dangerous in a democracy. The second characteristic of recent years is that Government policy is incredibly wasteful in a variety of ways. If Ministers were subject to the same rules

as local councillors, they would all be surcharged every year. The third theme that runs through Department for Education policy-making is strange for a party which so often claims to want to get government off our backs. That is the vast increase in centralisation and bureaucracy under the Government.
I shall substantiate those allegations in some detail. I deal first with the Conservative version of political correctness which extends not only to those appointed to quangos, although we have seen that time and again, but, even more worryingly, to the day-to-day funding of every school in Britain.
Ordinary schools which educate the vast majority of our children are being discriminated against because they do not fit the Government's political mould. We should spend a little time this evening considering exactly what are the Government's priorities in education spending.
When the city technology colleges were introduced, we were told two things: first, that private sponsors were keen, eager and waiting to pick up the bill; and, secondly, that the CTCs would be centres of excellence and lights for others to follow. The reality has been so dismal that the Government have abolished and abandoned the policy.
The latest Ofsted report for 1992–93 on standards and quality in education gives Ofsted's view on the success of CTCs. It states:
No CTC has yet established itself as a beacon of excellence". But millions of pounds have been poured into the CTCs. They have received £30 million of sponsorship money. The cost to the taxpayer has been £120 million, for just 15,150 pupils—an average cost per pupil of £7,997. Everyone in the House this evening should consider what that money could have been spent on in hard-pressed schools in our constituencies. It could have been used for science laboratories, language facilities, technology blocks or even nursery education. The cost of CTCs in revenue terms has also been great. The average cost has been £4,000 per pupil per year. The average cost per pupil per year in a local education authority school is £2,200. Those are the figures, despite all the assurances given at the time by the then Secretary of State.
That project has been scrapped and there are to be no more CTCs. But the taxpayer has had to pay for the Government's folly. Children in other schools are the losers because of the Government's insistence that political correctness and their dogma should come first.

Mr. Jamieson: Perhaps one reason why the Government scrapped the CTC policy was that the first one at Kingshurst was given a damning report by Her Majesty's inspectorate. Ironically, the most damning comments related to technology.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right—it is worrying that progress has not been made. One would expect the Government to learn from that, but what do they do? They abandon the CTC policy and devise the technology college initiative. They change direction to cover up the fact that their previous initiative has failed.
We were promised in the press release issued yesterday that there would be substantial sponsorship from business. That makes me wonder whether there will be another massive bill for the taxpayer. I do not understand why the Government cannot appreciate what the Confederation of British Industry said:
We want all schools to be strong in technology.


The CBI does not believe that funding compulsory education should be a business responsibility.
Ministers are breaking faith with all those other schools in the country that need extra resources for technology—the majority of schools—but are not prepared to walk into the Government's trap of grant-maintained status because they value their independence too much. That is a clear example of the way in which Government funding goes according to their version of political correctness.

Mr. Boswell: Before the hon. Lady leaves the subject, will she comment on the Labour party's proposals to involve private sector money in the public sector? Whatever the views of the CBI on the matter, how does she feel that such private money should be involved? Does she believe that it would be appropriate in the case of the schools sector?

Mrs. Taylor: The Minister, who has some responsibility for higher education, will know that there is a great deal of private money in that sector, which is where I should like to see an expansion of private involvement.
The Government showed their priorities by introducing the assisted places scheme, the cost of which has escalated every year.

Mr. Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady referred to further education. May I remind her that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), in an interview on the "Today" programme, specifically mentioned schools in that context. Does the hon. Lady endorse the views of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mrs. Taylor: Yes, of course we are considering all ways of obtaining more private money, but not methods that allow the private sector to control what happens inside schools—that is the opposite of what the Government are trying to do. If we can find ways of raising money in the private sector to use on crumbling schools and the backlog of repairs that we are bound to inherit from the Government—through bonds raised at local level or something of that sort—it will be appropriate to consider them. But we do not want control to be imposed on schools in the way that the Government are trying to impose it.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) should want to divert attention away from the assisted places scheme and its cost to the taxpayer. I am sure that I have heard him and other Conservative Members talk about the importance of the taxpayer receiving value for money. In 1992–93, the assisted places scheme cost the taxpayer £92.8 million—£3,405 a pupil. That compares with the average figure of £2,200 in other schools—half as much again as the amount received by the typical pupil. Last year, Ministers overspent on their assisted places budget by nearly 20 per cent. I wonder which local education authority is able to overspend its budget on schools by 20 per cent.
We have seen the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools stand in for the Secretary of State on many occasions. He has frequently told us that he is keen to tackle the problem of surplus places. He estimates that there are 1.5 million surplus places, but he is willing to use taxpayers' money to pay for 28,000 places in the private

sector. Where is the logic in that and where is the value for money for the taxpayer? That is the price that we as taxpayers are paying for Tory political correctness.
The bribes are running out for grant-maintained schools, but why has the grant-maintained capital budget been ring fenced in the past if not as a reward for political correctness? Why was cash protection rigged—as the Public Accounts Committee has shown—if not for political reasons? I am glad that the bribes are running out. I am glad that all schools, including grant-maintained schools, are realising the consequences of opting in to centralised control under the Secretary of State.

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Lady says that the bribes are running out and I hope that she is right. But I have a letter from the chairman of governors of Prospect school which is currently contemplating opting out, The letter states that if the school becomes grant maintained,
central Government will initially add to this investment £300,000".
That is rather a large bribe.

Mrs. Taylor: The example that the hon. Gentleman has just given is similar to the case of St. Thomas high school in Exeter, which voted last week. In that case, such promises were made and, I think, parliamentary questions were asked to find out whether a guarantee had been extracted. The parents had a choice and used it. They smelt a rat and overwhelmingly rejected grant-maintained status. They had no doubt heard of many of the problems facing grant-maintained schools. Those problems included the fact that, last June, 88 per cent. of grant-maintained schools had not received their budget for the current financial year. They also included the fact that many capital bids have been turned down. I read with great interest the Adjournment debate on 18 February this year when the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) talked about the refusal of capital to a grant-maintained school in his constituency. he said:
It is with some sadness that I bring to the Minister's attention the fact that the capital grant application that the school was invited to submit for the 1994–95 financial year has been turned down."—[Official Report, 18 February; Vol. 237, c. 1233.]
He went on to point out—this may be interesting to the hon. Member for Bath, in view of this question earlier—that he had had assurances from Sir Robert Belchin that that school was high on his agenda for capital in the following year.

Mr. Forth: Is the hon. Lady complaining that too much capital is available to the grant-maintained sector, or that not enough is available? She seems to be trying to say both.

Mrs. Taylor: What I am trying to tell the Minister is that we will have more Adjournment debates of that kind from conservative Members as grant-maintained schools realise that the bribes are not materialising and as more and more of them run into difficulties.

Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend could learn from the experience in Scotland, where Paisley grammar school, in the constituency of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for education in Scotland, was supposedly opting out. The proponents of the opt-out brought up a head teacher from a grant-maintained school in England to make the point that, although the English school had a comparable school population with that of Paisley grammar school, Paisley had 13 more teachers than the English grant-maintained. The Scottish parents, despite


the seeming bribes of the Scottish Office, knew that their future lay with a good local education authority. Is not that a lesson for them?

Mrs. Taylor: It is a very important lesson that we should all learn, but we should also bear in mind what happened in the other ballot in Scotland.

Mr. Forth: Scotland gets a lot of money.

Mrs. Taylor: The Minister is saying from a sedentary position that Scotland gets so much money, but there was one grant-maintained ballot in Scotland that went in his favour and the school decided to opt out, in order to avoid closure. What happened? In contrast to what has happened time and again with English Ministers, the Scottish Conservative Minister turned the school down because, he said, it was only seeking to opt out to avoid closure. So there are quite a few differences between what happens north of the border and what happens south of it.

Ms. Estelle Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps we can understand the Minister's confusion about what he is doing wrong—whether he is spending too much or too little money—because he is guilty on both counts? He is spending too much on capital to bribe schools in the initial years of opt-out and now he is spending too little on capital because he is part of a Government who are not prepared to see an overall increase in the amount of money going to education.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. Many schools have realised the consequences of going into the grant-maintained net. It is also a problem that has been highlighted by what is happening in some schools at the moment, given the squeeze on cash protection which will be more severe after April.

Mr. Oliver Heald: The title of the debate is "Investing in Education". The Liberals are quite clear that they would spend a good deal more on education at a cost to the taxpayer. What would Labour do?

Mrs. Taylor: We would not be wasting the money that, as I have outlined, is being wasted at present.
Let me give the House another example of the difficulties that the Government are causing for grant-maintained schools. Some grant-maintained schools are having to sack teachers and others are facing redundancy. I will watch with interest the outcome of an industrial tribunal which will take place in Carlisle later this week, following the sacking of 10 teachers by Kirkby Kendal grant-maintained school late last year. Some of the teachers are taking the school to an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal. Perhaps that is a clear example that not everything in the grant-maintained sector is rosy.
Perhaps it is not surprising that Kirkby Kendal was not among the schools mentioned in the Government's recent advertisements on grant-maintained status. They spent £200,000 trying to persuade other schools to go down that path. I wish that the Minister would tell us whether Hatchford primary school in Solihull, one of the schools featured in the advertisements, gave its consent to being featured in that way before it had heard from the Government that it would not receive one penny of its capital bid for the next year and whether it knew that it would be losing cash protection.
Most schools have understood that there is a great danger in opting into central control and being at the mercy

of Ministers. That, no doubt, is why the number of ballots for grant-maintained status has declined significantly, contrary to what the Minister said at Question Time today, and why the percentage of no votes has increased significantly to 38 per cent.

Mr. Boswell: Does the hon. Lady agree that the yes vote in January was 89 per cent?

Mrs. Taylor: The figures that I have are for the whole of the last term and a half, which is a very good time to look at. I do not have the January figures with me, but there were probably about six ballots in January. In the autumn and spring terms of 1992–93—if the Minister really wants the figures—there were 259 ballots. In the comparable period this year, there were just 53 ballots. The number of yes votes in 1992–93 in that period was 199. In 1993–94, the number of yes votes had declined from 199 to 33. The percentage of no votes in 1992–93 was 23 per cent., whereas in 1993–94 the figure was 38 per cent. If, therefore, we are looking at trends in grant-maintained ballots, the number of ballots is going down and the proportion of no votes is increasing.
The Government's three flagship policies—CTCs, assisted places and grant-maintained status—are all proving extremely costly to the taxpayer. We see that across the board. The hallmarks of the Government are waste, inefficiency and bureaucracy. The costs of centralisation and of running the Department, as well as staffing costs, have gone up. We have had the ridiculous expense of running Sanctuary buildings. The Department for Education told the Select Committee that the increased costs were due primarily to the Government's school reforms. Considering that we are back to the drawing board with the national curriculum, after spending £500 million, and that the Government have overburdened teachers with more administration and more bureaucracy than ever before, that is a very sad picture after so many years of Conservative Administration.
Before I sit down, I should like to mention something that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) touched on. I have not much time, because others want to speak, but I just mention it as an example of the stupidity of the Government and of what happens time and again when Ministers refuse to listen. When the Education Act 1988 was going through, Labour called for a joint body on curriculum and assessment. The Government refused. The National Curriculum Council was established in York, the School Examinations and Assessment Council was established in London, and the two went their separate ways.
In introducing the Education Act 1933, the Government accepted that we were right all along and have merged the two bodies into SCAA. The cost of the merger is £4 million, but it leaves the Government with an empty building in York. They have therefore created a new quango—the Funding Agency for Schools—and sent it to York. That is an incredible example of what the Government think it is right for a quango to do and have.
Taxpayer's money is involved in all that. When the National Curriculum Council was established in York it had a budget for fittings and fixtures of £560,000. It actually spent £2.3 million. But when it moved out so that the new quango could come in, there was a refurbishment budget of £763,000—more than three quarters of a million


pounds to refurbish a building that is less than four years old. That shows Government priorities and waste on a massive scale.
Ridiculously, the National Curriculum Council had to have a special carpet with the letters "NCC" interwoven throughout. Less than four years later, it must be thrown away and a new carpet must be laid for the Funding Agency for Schools.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: No, I have nearly finished my speech.
All that adds insult to injury for schools, which face a massive backlog of repairs and a massive shortage of resources. It is an insult to the pupils who are trying to learn in leaking classrooms and crumbling schools and to the teachers who are trying to teach without enough books to go round the class. The Government have shown by their actions that they are not interested in the education of every child. Just before Christmas, the Prime Minister said that 15 per cent. of children in this country got an education equal to anywhere in the world, but that, unfortunately, the rest did not. That is a damning indictment of 15 years of Conservative Government.

Mrs. Angela Browning: In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was quick to flag up the additional 1p in the pound to which the Liberal Democrats committed themselves before the last election, and to outline what that would provide in educational improvements. We are familiar with such traditional ruses from the Liberal Democrats. They blithely go around the country telling people on doorsteps that putting just a penny, which sounds fairly innocuous, on income tax will provide any education item chosen from a menu according to the person interviewed. That has a certain appeal, but it is totally dishonest.
According to the Liberal Democrats' own document, "Excellence for All", 1p in the pound on income tax would provide £1·75 billion extra over five years for the repair of school buildings and for nursery education. Tonight, the hon. Member for Bath agreed with my hon. Friend the Minister that that is likely to cost nearly £1 billion, although it is costed in his party's document at £525 million. He said that the shortfall would be covered by a saving on jobs created. That spurious argument does not stand up to close investigation.
The document also says that the penny would pay for the fact that no class would contain more than 30 pupils. That is set against rising school rolls in primary education, contrary to the trend in recent years. It would also pay for a significant increase in funding for local management of schools, which would mean more money for the budget of any school represented by the person to whom the Liberal Democrats were talking on the doorstep.

Mr. Streeter: Is not my hon. Friend being a little harsh on the Liberal Democrats? After all, would they not save money by dramatically cutting the defence budget, thus throwing many of her constituents and mine on to the unemployed list?

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes a good point. But the Liberal Democrats do not intend to use savings

made through defence expenditure cuts on education. They say categorically that 1p on income tax will pay for all that. Perhaps they should get back to basic sums.
The 1p is also supposed to pay for
reimbursing governors for earnings lost in the course of their duties";
to increase funding for in-service training for teachers; and to
establish an adult education and training unit with its own budget in the Department for Education.
As if that were not enough, that penny is stretched to the smallest decimal point in further education, where the Liberal Democrats would abandon the student loans system. The document says that all students would be eligible for a "fixed grant" to cover "specific additional costs" incurred as a result of their studies. A means-tested benefit would also be given to students, based not on their parents' income but on their own. The cost of that would be enormous.
All those measures already exceed £2 billion expenditure. Are those further education pledges to be funded also by 1p on the social security budget? They take us into the realms of a lot of money.

Mr. Heald: Has my hon. Friend also considered the cost that would be involved in reorganising every educational institution in the country? Those would include education departments where once there were local education authorities, a student council organisation in every school, a single Ministry reorganised for education and training, a new pay review body, a new national qualifications council and a new general training council. What would all that cost?

Mrs. Browning: It would cost considerably more money—certainly well in excess of 1p on income tax.

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend may not be entirely fair to the proposers of the motion. Has she noticed that the original pledge of 1p on income tax has been transformed in the motion to a reference to
increase investment in education by at least the equivalent of one penny of income tax"?
In proposing all those measures, might they not put much more on income tax than they have yet admitted?

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The wording,
at least the equivalent of one penny
means that, on the doorstep, Liberal Democrats can pick any one of the items mentioned by hon. Members tonight and say, "If this is what you want, we'll deliver it and it will cost you only 1p on income tax". It is nothing but a device for the doorstep and has nothing to do with increasing standards in education. It is a dishonest proposal.

Ms Estelle Morris: The hon. Lady is right to say that what the Liberal Democrats promise on the doorstep is not what they deliver when they are in control in local authorities. But will she accept responsibility for what Conservative local authorities do? Will she explain why Devon county council, when it was Tory controlled before last April, managed to put only 11 per cent. of its children through nursery education comparied with Labour-controlled Newham, which managed to put 64 per cent. through nursery education?

Mrs. Browning: I have great pleasure in providing that explanation. When the Conservatives were in control of


Devon county council before the county council elections, it cut its cloth accordingly. Labour and Liberal Democrat local education authorities throughout the country choose their priorities. If they choose to prioritize nursery education, it is inevitably at the loss of other areas of education that are just as, if not more, important.
The motion talks of "growing chaos and division" in education. We have certainly had growing chaos and division in education in the county of Devon since the county council control went to the Liberal Democrats, particularly surrounding those schools seeking grant-maintained status.
Before Liberal Democrat control, I was asked on several occasions by schools that were considering grant-maintained status whether I would speak in support of it. I told them categorically that if they wanted specific information I would do all that I could to assist them, but I did not feel that it was a matter for politicians and refused on each occasion. In recent weeks, however, the way in which the Liberal Democrat council and the LEA in Devon have behaved has been quite disgraceful.
Earlier today during Education Question Time my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) drew attention to the way in which the grant-maintained status ballots for St. Thomas high school in Exeter were conducted, and reference has been made to those ballots tonight. I informed my hon. Friend that I would be mentioning the subject because at the same time as St. Thomas was balloting, so was Ottery St. Mary primary school in my constituency. I have referred to my hon. Friend the official complaint by the governing body about how the LEA conducted the negotiations and the public meetings with parents.
The figures for insurance costs that were given to parents were not quoted on the basis of a primary school in Devon. The LEA quoted insurance costs for a secondary school in the midlands, thus worrying parents about the additional costs if the school became grant maintained. In addition, a member of the governing body who did not support grant-maintained status was able to conduct detailed negotiations with the LEA about the financial running of the school. That information was given to the newspaper so that the chairman and governing body had to read the details concerning their school in the public press. In other words they—the official body—had been sidelined so that the LEA could continue to conduct the way in which information was given to parents—through the newspapers instead of through the governing body.

Mr. Don Foster: I shall attempt to be brief. The hon. Lady raises many interesting points. First, I am not sure whether she was congratulating the Liberal Democrats on keeping their promises about grant-maintained schools. In view of what she has said, does she believe that it would be wrong for Members of Parliament to write to parents involved in grant-maintained school ballots? Does she believe that insurance for grant-maintained schools is easy to come by, or would she confirm my understanding that many are having considerable difficulties in getting insurance?

Mrs. Browning: Whether hon. Members wish to be involved is a matter for them, as is whether they wish to put a party political slant on the subject or choose to do as I did

and seek specific pieces of information. I have had no difficulty in obtaining insurance quotations, so I see no reason why a governing body should not obtain them.

Mr. Jamieson: Surely the hon. Lady must be aware that the only information put out by Devon county council was approved both by Local Schools Information and by the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about a matter in my constituency and I resent the fact that he has not done his homework. If he has an interest in what went on at the Ottery St. Mary primary school in my constituency, I hope that he will do his homework and find out the information.
The LEA responded to one governor and not the governing body. The chairman and the rest of the governing body read that information in the press. When they tried to correspond with the LEA and negotiate directly with them, they were denied that opportunity. That is an improper way for any LEA to communicate with a governing body.
If the hon. Gentleman has such an interest in my constituency, perhaps he will write to me privately and explain just what he knows about the way in which the discussions and ballot took place. It is no coincendence that there is a great deal of overlap of interest. When the local newspaper, the Exeter Express and Echo, printed a photograph of one of the meetings at St. Thomas high school, the audience included people from the Ottery St. Mary primary school which, to my certain knowledge, had absolutely no interest in St. Thomas high school.
Under the Liberal Democrats in Devon, the LEA will disclose information to anybody and leave the governing body last, until they have to ask for the information. We also seem to be in the area of flying pickets who go from meeting to meeting, regardless of whether they have an interest in the particular school. That is not how the grant-maintained status option should be considered. It should be considered rationally and impartially—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There is now so much noise that I can scarcely hear the hon. Lady. Will hon. Members keep rather quieter?

Mrs. Browning: Such discussions, particularly with parents, should be considered impartially and with full information on both sides. There are obviously two sides to the argument; none the less, the democratic process set up by the Government has been subjugated by the Liberal Democrat council in Devon and the National Union of Teachers and others who have a vested interest in making sure that it does not happen and who are making sure that parents are not given access to full and impartial information.
I close with a quotation from Devon county council's chief education officer, following the St. Thomas high school vote. He said:
The vote is particularly significant as it keeps the authority well below the 10 per cent. threshold for secondary school pupils attending opted out schools. Beyond that level, Devon has to share responsibility for planning the provision of secondary schools with the Funding Agency for Schools…A yes vote would have taken the percentage of secondary pupils in Devon to 9·95 per cent.
It is not in the interests of fairness and impartiality or a matter for the judgment of parents and governors; it is a matter of sustaining an LEA department that is at the fore


of the activities perpetrated by the Liberal Democrats in Devon—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman put that away. I do not want to see rude pictures across the Chamber.

Mr. Tom Cox: Tempting though it is to comment on some of the points raised earlier, in fairness to hon. Members and the requests from the Chair for short speeches, I intend to concentrate solely on one issue. As a Member representing inner London, I raise an issue that is causing enormous concern to schools throughout London —the future of section 11 funding.
In London at the present time, some 650 teaching posts are funded under section 11. In my constituency, 48 full-time teaching posts are funded under section 11, and 21 schools benefit from it. The grant paid to the London borough of Wandsworth—I am a Member for that borough—is well over £1 million a year. Those figures result from a series of questions that I have asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department over the past two weeks in the House.
Under section 11 funding, the present percentage-75 per cent.—will, in April, be reduced to 57 per cent. It is already clear what the effects of that cut will be, not only in my constituency but in many boroughs throughout inner and outer London. As a result of that reduction, London will lose some £16 million. It will affect many schools in boroughs such as Brent, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hackney, Ealing and Islington. No hon. Member, on either side of the Chamber, who represents a constituency in those boroughs can be unaware of the effects that it will have on schools in their constituencies unless there is a drastic reappraisal of the cuts.

Mr. Heald: Is it official Labour party policy to reinstate any cuts that are made in section 11 funding, as we have not heard about that from the hon. Member's hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Cox: I would expect that every Labour authority will do all that it can to reimpose section 11 funding. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman goes through the Lobbies as Lobby fodder on the many occasions on which we see cuts being made in local authority funding, in whatever sector that funding may be spent. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's question, he may be interested to know that the borough of Wandsworth, which makes great play of having the lowest council tax in the country, has clearly said that it will only keep section 11 funding until the summer, and will give no guarantees that, for the rest of the year, or future years, it will pick up any of that funding. This issue goes to the heart of the argument that I am seeking to present, not only for my constituency but for constituencies that are represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I confirm that when the Government announced the cuts in section 11 funding, although it is a Home Office matter, my hon. Friends the shadow Secretary of State for Education and the shadow Home Secretary, jointly made it clear that it would have a

serious adverse impact on the education of children who benefited from the funding and for whom English was not their first language. We would restore those cuts.

Mr. Cox: In the schools in my constituency, I have found that section 11 funding benefits the whole school, not just part of it. If no teachers in the school are employed under section 11 funding, because schools often manage their own budgets they do not have the resources to pick up the staffing levels that section 11 funding allows them to have, the whole school will suffer. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) may be interested to know that the funding next year will be reduced still further to 50 per cent. At the moment, it is 75 per cent.
In the past three weeks, I have visited five schools throughout my constituency, not just in certain areas. Not one head teacher or member of staff, when we have talked about this issue, has said to me that they are in a position to pick up the funding out of their existing budgets to make up for the loss of money that they will soon experience. That is what is so crucial to us in London, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, the whole role of the school will start to suffer. No school in inner London—or, I suspect, anywhere in the country —can say, "We are lucky. We have surplus teachers. If we lose a teacher because of funding withdrawals, we have the additional staff to make up the loss." From the visits that I have made in my constituency and the detailed discussions that I have had with head teachers and staff, I can say that not one of them said that they could pick up that funding and therefore keep staff now employed under section 11. What they do say is that they are enormously fearful about the effect on their schools. The cuts will not only affect teachers' morale, although that is crucial; they will affect parents' trust in schools and the standards in schools.
As we all know, whatever the difficulties—and there are some difficult schools in London, as there may be in many other parts of the country—it is to teachers' credit that they do everything possible to raise standards, and often succeed. I am convinced, however, that that can be done only when staffing levels are adequate: without adequate staffing levels, classes become larger and problems arise. Those of us who visit schools, and talk to heads and other teachers, know that when enough staff are available they can move the youngsters with problems, and continue to pursue the standards that schools are working to achieve.
This is a crucial issue, for London and for Members of Parliament. I know that it is primarily a Home Office issue, but I beg the Minister to consult his Home Office colleagues and try to readjust the cuts that are threatened for April. Otherwise, we shall undoubtedly experience enormous problems as a result of the breakdown of morale and loss of hope—and, above all, the loss of the expectations felt by many youngsters, and especially by their parents.
The Minister may say that this is indeed a Home Office matter, but the issues are intimately linked. As I have said, the funding for schools is due to fall from 75 to 50 per cent. next year; councils will be stretched to the limit. It will be a disaster for London schools in areas such as mine, whose authorities refuse to compensate for the loss of funds.
I do not believe much of what we hear from Ministers; I take far more notice of what I am told by heads and other teachers. But if the Minister who opened the debate really believes what he said about the progress that had been


made, he really should consider section 11 funding. If the cuts proceed, how will progress be made? Sadly, we shall see the reverse of progress—loss of morale and hope, and a loss to the communities in which the schools exist. Surely, no hon.. Member on either side of the House can condone such behaviour.

Mr. James Pawsey: Let me declare an interest immediately: like the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I am a consultant with the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
I hope that the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) will forgive me if I do not follow his lead on section 11 funding. I was interested by what the hon. Member for Dewsbury said—or, rather, what she did not say; I thought it significant that, in a speech lasting some 28 minutes, she did not set out the Labour party's programme. She seemed more than content to attack grant-maintained schools—yet, if they are failing, why should she spend so much time attacking them? As Shakespeare said, methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: I will in a moment. Let me get into my speech first.
The motion strikes me as somewhat contrived. Of course education requires investment: that is why the Government spend more per child, in real terms, than was spent in 1979. We spend more on pre-school education, we spend more on children in school and we spend more on our young people in advanced education.
We have invested in the nation's teachers with pay increases that better reflect the importance of the work that they do. I have argued in the House over a long period that the overwhelming majority of the nation's teachers are dedicated to their profession and to the children in their charge. It is, therefore, right that they now receive a salary which is more commensurate with their responsibilities and duties.
In education, as in life, however, money is not everything. Ideas and policies are even more important. There is little doubt that new ideas and policies have come from the Conservative party and from the Government.

Mr. Win Griffiths: On the subject of new policies and what the hon. Member was saying earlier about my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), may I point out that my hon. Friend was attacking not grant-maintained schools, but the policies of the Government that created such a cockeyed and wasteful system?

Mr. Pawsey: I found that to be genuinely an extraordinary intervention. As the hon. Gentleman is not now attacking grant-maintained schools, and if the Labour party is not now attacking grant-maintained schools, let me hear him say, in simple words of one syllable, that under any regime of which he is a member, grant-maintained schools will remain. Of course they will not. Of course his hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and other Opposition Members continue their spiteful action against the grant-maintained schools, a matter to which I will refer later.
I say that the new ideas and policies come from the Government and from the Conservative party. We have

sought genuinely to improve the quality and standard of state education by introducing the national curriculum and testing, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and national targets for education and training, and by substantially increasing the number of students in advanced education. In 1979, only one in eight of the target group was in advanced education. Today, the figure is one in three—an unprecedented increase.
That increase emphasises two things—first, that the nation's schools are producing substantial numbers of young people well able to take advantage of advanced education and, secondly, that resources have been increased in the universities, enabling them to take more students.
I will now turn to the subject of local education authorities. We have endeavoured to reduce the monopoly; indeed, the LEA monopoly has been increasingly challenged by the emergence of grant-maintained schools. Grant-maintained schools build on the success of local management of schools—yet another of the Government's initiatives. LMS ensures that more funding—or, as the motion puts it, more investment—reaches the individual school and reaches down to the individual classroom, to the individual pupil. That must be to the benefit of the nation's children.
I understand why local education authorities dislike grant-maintained schools. They are, after all, a challenge not only to the established bureaucracy and empire of the LEA but to the policies and the ethos of the LEA. In spite of the opposition, however, 814 grant-maintained schools have so far emerged, with another 67 in the immediate pipeline, which makes a total of 881. In addition, a further 118 have voted yes.
Grant-maintained status introduces diversity into the nation's education system. Where there was one single basic school, the neighbourhood comprehensives, there is now real choice for children and for parents, and that choice will grow because of GMS and because the Government are allowing those schools to change their character.
Parents like choice, a point emphasised by the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools pointed out, more than half a million pupils are now being taught in grant-maintained schools —schools which have cut the apron strings that once secured them to the local education authority.
Yet another initiative introduced by the present Government was the introduction of the Office for Standards in Education, which ensures that every school will be inspected at least once every four years—a substantial improvement on what went before. I recall that when the measure was introduced, it was thought that it would be the end of inspection as we knew it. The reverse is true. Ofsted is a success story. It is accepted and working well and its inspectors go into the nation's schools and make a positive contribution to improving the quality and standard of state education.
The initiatives that I have so far described are only some of the ideas that the Government and the Conservative party have introduced, but it is instructive to compare our policies with those of the Opposition. Inasmuch as the Labour party has a policy, it is simple and single: one policy, one choice, one school. In Labour's view, bureaucracy is best and the man in shire hall has all the answers.
Opposition Members oppose tests, league tables and anything that smacks of independence. Opposition Members have become not so much the party of Opposition, more the party of obstruction; or, perhaps more accurately, the party of abolition. Opposition Members would abolish grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) is applauding and I have a longer catalogue to give him, so he will be able also to applaud the abolition of the assisted places scheme and, according to the hon. Member for Dewsbury, independent schools.
Opposition Members march under a slogan of "Back to the 1960s", and they want to return to the trendy fashions that did so much to destroy British education. Theirs remains a true policy of envy—a policy displayed and re-emphasised last week by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. In an interview given in the magazine of the Independent Schools Information Service, she reaffirmed her party's opposition to independent schools and her desire to abolish the assisted places scheme, which provides places to about 30,000 children from low-income families.
I noted, almost with incredulity, the intention of the hon. Member for Dewsbury to reopen the issue of charitable status for independent schools, thereby reversing the policy of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I wonder what the Leader of the Opposition, in his quest for respectability, makes of the albatross that she has hung around his neck and that of the Labour party?
I shall turn to the policy of the mover of the motion —the Liberal Democrat party, or whatever it is called this week. I do not accuse the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) of being two-faced, for if he had two faces he would not be wearing the one that he is wearing today. I. accuse him, however, of facing two ways. After all, on testing the Liberal Democrats said:
very little information of use to parents has ever been produced.
They went on to say that they would have a system of tests based entirely on continuous assessment.
The hon. Member for Bath appears to disagree with his party—he shows the independence of mind for which he is rightly becoming famous. In a report in The Times he states:
the issue is not about the fundamental principle of testing and assessment".
It is, however, true that, from time to time and when it suits his party, it attacks the
fundamental principle of setting each child the same objective test at a given time.
Naturally, the Liberal Democrats would abolish most formal examinations, including the GCSE, the national vocational qualification and A-levels. They would be replaced by qualifications modelled on—this will amuse the House—the piano exams principle. That is the best that they can come up with.
The debate has provided Conservative Members with an opportunity—albeit very brief—to highlight some of the Government's initiatives and expose the paucity of thought among the Opposition parties. We now require a period in which schools can digest the reforms that have been introduced. I have no doubt that the past six years will be

seen as a time of great change and challenge and that from that challenge will emerge an education system well suited to the needs of the next century.

Mr. David Jamieson: It is always a pleasure to follow a peroration from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) whose speech was, as always, lively although it owed more to rhetoric than to fact—it improves every time I hear it. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and I shall make my contribution brief as I know that other hon. Members wish to participate.
There are many stresses on schools today, mainly due to the myriad innovations of the past few years, such as LMS —the local management of schools—a concept that I broadly welcome. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned it but I must point out that it was pioneered by Labour authorities and copied—sensibly—by the Government. The national curriculum and the constant chopping and changing have also placed stresses on our schools. There have been many U-turns and only last week the common funding formula was announced.
Last week the Select Committee on Education took evidence. The Government spokesman on education in another place said that one essential fact about the common funding formula was that it had to be transparent and easily understandable. The Committee heard from the head teacher of a grant-maintained school who was asked whether he understood how the figure for his school's budget was arrived at. It was most revealing that he replied:
I have to confess that I do not understand how the figure was arrived at".
I liked his next comment which was:
I also understand why I do not understand.
Clearly, more chaos and confusion will enter the education system if we have a common funding formula that head teachers, directors of education and treasurers do not understand. The real test will come tomorrow when a Minister from the Department for Education comes before the Committee and we find out whether he understands the common funding formula.
We have heard tonight that many schools have been disrupted by the ballots for grant-maintained status. The Education Act 1993 guarantees that every year governors have to consider the disruption of their school because they have to vote on whether to have a ballot. It is simply a one-way track to Government control—schools have to keep on balloting until they have made the "right" decision.
Reference has been made to a ballot that took place at St. Thomas' high school last week, the result of which was announced on Thursday. It is yet another example of disruption. The school is an excellent comprehensive school with 1,200 pupils. It has a good reputation and high standards but found itself holding a ballot on grant-maintained status.
What happened in the balloting process? The head teacher held only one meeting, at which he did not allow any contrary view to be expressed. The only way in which the contrary view could be expressed to the head teacher and the governors who wanted to opt out was for a group of parents to hire a hall some distance from the school and


to advertise a meeting. The 650 parents who turned up, with an independent person chairing the meeting, heard both sides of the argument clearly put forward.
What the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) said tonight was totally wrong. I repeat to her that the information put out by the local education authority in Devon was similar to that put out when it was under Conservative control. That information was approved both by Local Schools Information and the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust. What went wrong with the ballots at St. Thomas' high school and at Ottery St. Mary was that the parents did not make what Conservative Members thought was the right choice.

Mrs. Browning: It is amazing, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport —a seat more than 60 miles from Ottery St. Mary—has such detailed knowledge that he professes to know far more than the local Member of Parliament does about how the matter was conducted with the governing body, which has been in correspondence and communication with me on the subject for the past three weeks. If the hon. Gentleman knew so much about those events I wonder why he did not raise with me the fact that he intended to trespass on my constituency over a matter affecting Ottery St. Mary.

Mr. Jamieson: If an hon. Member raises a matter in debate in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, surely it is in order for another Member to speak about the substance of what has been said. The hon. Member for Tiverton is attacking me for coming to the Chamber well informed. I shall always accept such an attack from her, or from any other Conservative Member. I shall come to the Chamber well informed. The hon. Lady does not like what she is hearing, and most of all she does not like what the parents in her area—perhaps voters or former voters of hers —said in the ballot, not what the parents sad at St. Thomas' high school.
So espoused are Conservative Members to parental choice that when the ballot goes against them they come to the Chamber whingeing and complaining about information not being presented clearly and fairly. I should have thought that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannarn)—he might have attended the debate tonight, such was his concern about the outcome of the ballot—would say that what is needed in those schools now is a period in which the wounds caused by the ballot can heal, and the school and the teachers can get on with the job of educating children rather than having to go through politically motivated ballots.
There has been some talk about capital expenditure on schools tonight. At one time, that was used as a part bribe to grant-maintained schools, to entice schools to opt out. I am sure that the hon. Member for Tiverton will have done her homework, and like me will have noted that six grant-maintained schools in Devon put in a bid for a total of £2·85 million for capital works in 1994–95. Although those are the so-called flagships of Tory policy, what were those schools actually offered? I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) is listening, too, because he has a particular interest in one of the schools. Of the £2·85 million that the grant-maintained schools in Devon bid for, the Government, with all their generosity to grant-maintained schools, offered them a mere £23,000. They must now be reflecting on whether

they would have been better off staying with the local education authority, because then they would probably have received substantially more.

Mr. Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jamieson: I shall certainly give way if the hon. Gentleman will explain why the grant-maintained school in Plymouth did not get its £750,000 bid. In that case I shall be pleased to hear from him.

Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is extremely hostile to grant-maintained schools, but why does he not join me in congratulating the headmaster and staff of an excellent grant-maintained school in his own constituency—St. Boniface college, which this year achieved far better exam results than the comprehensive school just along the road, of which he used to be deputy headmaster?

Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is an absolutely absurd idea. He may answer the question why he does not send his own children to the school in his constituency. Since the school in Plymouth went comprehensive and we got rid of part of the system of secondary moderns and some of the selection, we have seen standards improve more and more in the city. If the hon. Gentleman had done his homework, he would also know that.
One other matter that I shall raise concerns the fact that many of the children in my constituency are children of service families. Since the parents are serving abroad, sometimes in war zones, their children attend private schools through the boarding schools allowance scheme. Those schools are mainly private schools and an answer given by the Minister shows that, in total, £120 million per year is spent on that scheme. I am not opposed to the scheme, but to what degree is that huge investment of public money checked? So few of those schools receive an inspection, which was talked of by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)—the four-yearly Ofsted inspection. Inspections are not made of those private schools, yet they receive large sums of public money. I have examples of some of the few schools which have been inspected by Her Majesty's inspectorate and Ofsted. Those schools receive respectively a quarter, one half and two thirds of their money from the taxpayer, but they have the most damning HMI reports.
I have written to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools, who has replied. I asked him if those reports had been made known to all the parents and children in the school. He said that the school is supplied with copies of the published report and that
it can distribute as it sees fit".
If there is a good report, it is sent to all the parents, but if, like those schools, it is a bad report, it is not. The Minister's letter continued:
The onus is on the school to distribute the report to interested parties or to advise them where reports can be obtained.
Needless to say, in the case of those schools, the reports never found their way into the hands of the parents. I look forward to hearing answers to some of the points that I have raised. In particular, I should like to hear what the Minister intends to do to ensure that children of service men and women get a decent education in those private schools which at present are not inspected by Ofsted.

Mr. James Wallace: I confess that I went too far earlier when I protested about the total absence of Scottish Ministers on the Government Front Bench. It is fair to say that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) had indicated that he would not be able to attend the debate because of the Standing Committee. It is also fair to say that at least one member of the Scottish Office, the Secretary of State, is not so committed. In the United Kingdom Parliament, dealing with the subject of education which affects people north and south of the border, while the Labour party Scottish spokesman has been present for a good part of the debate, there has not been a single Scottish Conservative Member present. That reflects the attitude of the Conservative party to an important matter such as education north of the border.

Mr. Burns: What about the Scottish Nationalists?

Mr. Wallace: I am not here to defend the Scottish Nationalists.

Mr. Boswell: Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the House how many members of the Liberal Democrat party were present during the extremely important debate before Christmas on the national education and training targets?

Mr. Wallace: It was a far larger percentage than that of Scottish Conservative Members present during tonight's debate, since anything is greater than zero.
To add to the injury that -I felt when the Minister said that he could not reply to my intervention, I was asked by the Scottish Office to indicate some of the matters that would be raised. Perhaps I had overestimated the Minister's speed learning on issues as complex as those relating to Scotland, notwithstanding his background.
It is a pity that there are no Scottish Office Ministers here because there are one or two kind things that we would have said—for example, about the early introduction of the five to 14-year-olds curriculum in Scotland. It is fair to say that the curriculum has been introduced in Scotland with greater public and professional acceptance and willingness to make it work than has been the case south of the border. However, aspects of the national curriculum have been changed even before some parts of it have been implemented.
In testing, we have seen the Government's willingness to back down to a considerable extent under joint pressure from teachers and parents. Now, instead of imposing an ideological position, local authority staff are agreeing that teachers will be free to determine whether it is appropriate to test and, if so, when. The fact that there have been relatively few tests has not brought the huge outcry from parents that Tory Members lead us to expect. In Scotland, we have not the product of this Government but an inheritance of a much broader-based approach to secondary education and the examinations at the end of it.
It is understood that perhaps tomorrow we will get the Government's response to Professor Howie's report. While there is general consensus that Professor Howie has identified a weakness in a system which has served Scotland well for many years, I hope that the Government will not go down the road of having a two-tier system of examinations at the end of secondary education.
I was not allowed to intervene in what is substantially a debate dominated by English Members. The debate has had its moments. We enjoyed the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) describing the advertisement displayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) as "rude". In case there is any doubt in the minds of those who read the record later, I hasten to add that the advertisement on the advantages of grant-maintained schools that the hon. Lady described as "rude" was placed in the Radio Times by the Department for Education.

Mrs. Browning: As hon. Members will observe, I have now put on my glasses. I tend not to wear them in the Chamber—that way, Opposition Members remain a blur to me. When the picture was suddenly flashed at me across the Chamber, without my glasses on it looked like a rather rude picture and I did not want to have anything to do with it.

Mr. Wallace: Hon. Members on this side of the House would perhaps think it was rude in other respects, but I do not think that anyone could say that it offended public decency.

Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wallace: No. The hon. Member for Tiverton made two criticisms: first, having campaigned in the county council elections in opposition to grant-maintained schools, the Liberal Democrats maintained their election promise when they swept aside the Tories in Devon; and, secondly, she seemed to have an aversion to open government and to be frightened that too much information was getting into the public domain. Undoubtedly, the fact that there was that amount of information led to the voters and parents taking the decision which they did in the ballots that have been referred to.
Much of this debate has rightly concentrated on the need for investment in education and the question of resources. When one looks at the developments in places such as south-east Asia and the changes that will come from eastern Europe, it is clear that we must invest in our young people if we are to be able to compete economically in an ever more competitive global market.

Dr. Spink: The hon. Gentleman will be happy to congratulate the Government on their investment in education since 1979. They increased by 50 per cent. in real terms the total amount that is spent on education, by 19 per cent. the amount that they spend per pupil on capital, by 47 per cent. the amount that they spend per pupil in education and by 31 per cent. the amount that they spend on books and equipment in education.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman could not have teed up my next point better if he had tried. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath referred to the brief from the Library for the debate on the Budget resolutions and the economic situation on 6 December. He pointed out that if one takes account of the appropriate education price deflators and the changes in pupil numbers, the increases in resources is not about 40 per cent., but just 2 per cent. That reveals a fall in real terms in spending on secondary education, and spending on further education has fallen by 22 per cent.
The report by the National Commission on Education shows that spending on books per pupil has fallen by 17 per cent. and expenditure per pupil was no higher in


volume terms in 1990–91 than it was in 1980–81. At 1991–92 prices, capital expenditure in schools in Scotland when the Government came to power was £149 million. In 1991–92, it was £72·5 million, having fallen in one year to as low as £63 million.
Many of the figures are far from accurate. There has been a fall in investment in education if one takes into account all the relevant factors. It is not just a question of money and resources. The motion makes it clear that there must also be investment in goodwill and people, and an investment in the partnership described in the motion between all the main players.

Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wallace: No, I will not give way. I have been generous in giving way, and I am speaking against the clock.
The Government have been weak. There has been a negative investment in terms of goodwill at all stages, and the alienation of many of those employed in the education service has led to a staggering loss of morale. Looking north of the border, we can see the reasons behind the campaigns that the teaching unions have been mounting about the greater work loads, or overloads, which have been placed on them.
We need only to look at an assortment of the 24 Government initiatives since the 1987 election. There has been a new initiative every three and a half months. Most of those are not trifling, and some are welcome. They include school boards; the five to 14 programme; performance indicators; devolved school management; modern language teaching in primary schools; formal development planning; action against bullying; national teating; computers in the classroom; case conference machinery; regulations recording truancy; staff development and appraisal; enhanced school inspection; self-governing schools legislation—one could go on.
Those are important developments, but, taken as a whole, they give a strong impression that the Government have substituted vision and strategy for a policy of change for change's sake. The policy lacks coherence. On the one hand, there is the promotion of decentralisation, and on the other the imposition of central control.
The Association of Head Teachers of Scotland prepared a report which was sent to the Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office last year. The report said:
If there is any underlying consistency to this catalogue of reforms, it certainly escapes casual scrutiny. People know it is not possible to travel in different directions at the same time. The problem is overcome…by the use of phrases familiar to headteachers, for example:—'Emphasis on…should not be to the exclusion of…without losing sight of the need of and the like. What this kind of language amounts to is a belief that by uttering a few well-chosen words, the laws which usually govern human affairs will somehow be suspended.
There are two unifying factors. Most, if not all, are time-consuming and require extensive work over and above the basic function of the teacher—teaching children and young people in a classroom.
When the AHTS named the report to which I referred, it was no coincidence that it called it "Children Incidentally". The report said:
The title chosen…reflects our view of the way in which the immediate needs of children are being pushed to the periphery as all attention is concentrated on change as a process, and, seemingly, an end in itself.

There is stress and low morale, and that affects teachers and inevitably has an effect on the children they teach. It cannot be conducive to creating a proper educational environment in which the highest standards are achieved.
The staff of Inchmore primary school wrote to the Scottish Educational Journal—the journal of the Educational Institute of Scotland. They said:
In the primary sector we, as individual teachers, have to address all curricular areas not just one subject. If the Government want quality then they must pay for it by ensuring that our children, in Scotland, are being taught by teachers who are not suffering from the stress of implementation.
When well-documented cases are presented to the Scottish Office, it appears that only lip-service is paid to the problem. The remedies that are put forward make no impact on the work load of the teacher in the classroom, and they fuel further the suspicion that officialdom at the highest level has no real concept of what it takes to teach children in the classroom of the 1990s.
We should not lose sight of the people who matter. They are the children in the classroom and the young people in our colleges and universities. At nursery, primary and secondary level and in further and higher education there have been tremendous pressures.
In Scotland, the proportion of three and four-year-olds who attend nursery education is lower than even the United Kingdom average, which does not always bear worthy comparison with other countries. I have mentioned some of the problems in primary schools with the introduction of curriculum change. In further education, the important link between local communities and further education colleges has been broken as the Government pursue centralising tendencies.
While the Government boast about the increase in student numbers in our universities—a worthy achievement—they say little about the strain that additional numbers place on lecture theatres, laboratory equipment and tutorial sizes. Little is heard about the significant drop-out rate among students and the financial hardship that many of them face.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools asked what evidence there was that increased resources led to better standards in education. I know that it is not a very good authority, but perhaps I could quote from the Government's amendment to our motion. It suggests that the House
believes that the Government's commitment to a high quality education service is further demonstrated by the record sums it is spending".
We have challenged whether those sums are as great in real terms as the Government claim.

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman mentions the sums that have been spent, but he knows as well as I do that in Scotland we are going through local government reorganisation—not reform—which the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have estimated will cost £720 million. Given that the reorganisation is being put in place against a backdrop of reducing public expenditure, does the hon. Gentleman feel that the schoolchildren of Scotland in the future will be less well off than they have been up to now?

Mr. Wallace: The current generation will be very much affected by those changes, on top of all the other matters to which I have referred.
It is clear from the agonised protests of the hon. Member for Tiverton that the policy commitment made by the Liberal Democrats—

Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wallace: I have only one minute left. The policy commitment of increased resources amounting to 1p on income tax is a popular policy. It gives substance to what we have argued. It is more convincing than the promise by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). She said that Labour's commitments would be met by tackling waste and not having so many carpets in the office of the National Curriculum Council. That lacked a certain degree of credibility.
We have costed our programme. It was put to accountants before the last election. We argue that our sums add up a lot better than those of the Conservative party, given the public sector borrowing requirement that it has created compared with the false prospectus that it put to the electorate at the general election.
Education is an investment that we cannot afford not to make. By souring the relationships that are vital for creating a partnership to deliver a high-quality education service, and failing to invest the necessary resources, the Government are in danger of failing a generation. Glossy pamphlets and league tables will never be a substitute for the dedication and professionalism of the teaching profession. Our young people deserve far better than they have received after 15 years of Tory rule. Our motion makes it clear that we are the party which has the commitment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) at least paid my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the compliment of picking up on the most interesting remark of the evening, which my hon. Friend made at the beginning of the debate. He properly made the point that there was no direct correlation between the total expenditure and the success of a particular school system. The Government's amendment makes it clear that we have a commitment which is evidenced by the high and rising level of provision of finances for education.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred inaccurately to the drop-out rate. He spoke as though it had increased. The Liberal motion also says that the drop-out rate has increased. He referred to spending on further education and deplored the breaking of the link with local education authorities. I thought that exactly that decentralising of power and empowerment of the local community was a Liberal priority. The hon. Gentleman also warned us, in a number of windy phrases, that we should not lose sight of children in the classroom—I agree. He said that we should make a heavy investment in education, which we have also done.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The annunciator is referring to the Minister as Mr. Baldry—it has just been corrected.

Mr. Boswell: What a splendid waste of time.
Let us now consider the facts. When I consider the debate I am reminded of the famous old remark about the Opposition Benches reflecting a row of extinct volcanoes. It is clear that the explosive force of the Labour party's spending pledges has been effectively, if temporarily, plugged by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who is sitting on the core. Nevertheless, in those places that I believe are known in the trade as round the back and out of sight, at the sides of the volcano of explosive spending, are pyroclastic flows. They appear at local gatherings such as teachers' conferences, where idle spending pledges are made. I anticipate that the plug will be removed from the central core and we shall see a return of the characteristic Labour habit of showering pledges all over the place in an uncontrolled manner.
To pursue the analogy, the Liberal Democrats, who tabled the motion, have seemed much more like the tail end of volcanic activity. They are gently rounded, non-threatening and entirely non-intrusive grassy mounds, but if one moves close to them one can observe the outcrops of volcanic pumice. If one moves closer still one finds that the stuff is abrasive, but essentially lightweight. That has been well evinced in the debate.
The substantial part of the contribution of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has already been dealt with and I shall respond to the issues raised by the Liberal Democrats later.
I shall deal first with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). She offered her familiar litany of grouses, although she set them out more elegantly than she sometimes does. She referred in an almost thoughtful way to political correctness. If she wants to look for examples of political correctness in action she should look at local education authorities.
The hon. Lady referred to the alleged wastefulness of Government policies. It was conceded that there were well over 1 million empty places in schools. Those places have not been under the direct control of the Government—it is important to deal with that issue at a local level.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister give a guarantee that no school will be allowed to opt out to avoid closure as part of a plan to reorganise and to get rid of surplus places, as has happened?

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Lady has made such assertions, but my brief experience and the experience of my colleagues has shown that we always turn our attention to potential problems such as that. We have not allowed it to occur.
The hon. Lady also spoke of centralisation. The number of school governors with a proper job to do in the local management of schools and grant-maintained schools is about 250,000. That is a huge increase in the number of people with a practical job to do on behalf of their schools and it is very much to be welcomed.
The hon. Lady was on familiar territory when she spoke about grant-maintained schools. She neglected to say that the great majority of parents, pupils and staff of grant-maintained schools are delighted at the provisions that have been obtained and the improvements in standards.

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend has mentioned grant-maintained schools and the effect of local education authorities. Does he deprecate the fact that Bedfordshire county council has withdrawn library services from


grant-maintained schools? Does he also deprecate the fact that Kent and Essex have withdrawn repairs and maintenance from school budgets? Does he particularly deprecate the fact that, in Cornwall, potential school governors apparently have to take an oath of allegiance against grant-maintained schools? Does he agree that we do not want placemen as school governors, but people who want to contribute to the school?

Mr. Boswell: Time is short—the answers are yes, yes and yes.
The hon. Lady referred to the assisted places scheme without referring to its policy. I noticed, as did my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, that in her speech there was no reference at all to policies for education and no reference to a concern for the quality of education, except obliquely. Those are the reasons why we need to innovate and to make changes in educational policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) spoke with great passion. She analysed and destroyed the Liberal Democrat case for the one extra penny, but I will return to that myself because I will enjoy doing it as well. My hon. Friend then referred to a particular school and a complaint about a ballot which I think she has referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I remind the House that the Government believe in democracy and in the right of parents to choose the best future for their schools. If, where cases are brought to my right hon. Friend's attention, he judges that an LEA or anyone else has engaged in activities which have prejudiced the outcome of the ballot, he has the power to void the ballot, and he would use that power if it were justified. I think that I should not comment beyond that.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke with some force about his concerns over section 11 funding. He rightly anticipated that this is primarily a matter for the Home Office and we can draw his remarks to the Home Office's attention, but I should remind him for the record —it is an important point —that the needs of children in that category are not catered for solely by section 11 but are also reflected in the standard spending assessment formula.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) spoke with this characteristic force about what was going on and he pointed to the weaknesses of Labour policy. He referred, for example—as a higher education Minister, I should do so, too—to the remarkable achievement that we have produced in empowering young people and in expanding student numbers so that we now have more than 1 million students in this country. He also referred to the importance of challenging the settled monopoly of local education authorities and of increasing choice and he is entirely right about that, too.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) wound up the Back-Bench contribution with his characteristic whingeing about this and that, his dislike of certain grant-maintained schools, and his concern about the common funding formula, on which we have consulted fully and which is no more complicated than LMS standards of devolution. I had thought that the hon. Gentleman was a mathematician, but I could be wrong about that. He exemplifies one of the essential problems about the attitude of the Labour party, which is that nothing must ever be changed, and every innovation that we make is automatically rubbished because they have nothing to offer instead of it.
If I may return to the motion itself, I remind the hon. Member for Bath—I hope that I have not besmirched him, but I have it on the record—that he once said that his party would be very keen to see the benefits of grant-maintained status being passed to all schools. It is a sort of vicarious GM, no doubt including the LEA in the case of the Liberal Democrats.
I must return to the central point of the debate, which is the one penny. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton destroyed the case for one penny because she made the point that it had been amply recycled into a range of provision from nursery books to student loans. We have been told that it is "at least" one penny, but the Liberal Democrats have spent their penny in such a way that it is even more recycled than Thames water is.
I notice also that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), in the kind of debate that is never noticed because it happens on a Friday, referred to a visit to Hong Kong, where the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland may also have gone. He reported to the House on 14 January:
There is no doubt that it is easier to do business where tax has a ceiling rate of 15 per cent.—[Official Report, 14 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 443.]
One or two extra on top of what we have, and what is the price of that?
In the middle of all these false trails, false complaints and false nostrums, the Government are getting on with the job of improving the nations's education. We should record that on the schools side alone, through the revenue support grant provided by the Department of the Environment, we are spending £17·1 billion directly into local education authorities. At the same time, we are asserting choice and diversity. We are driving forward, through performance indicators, higher standards. That is not divisive, but is what parents want. We shall continue to do that and to raise educational standards.
For that reason, I invite the House to reject the motion and to support my right hon. Friend's amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 282.

Division No. 150]
[9.59 pm


AYES



Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Alton, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Barnes, Harry
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Beggs, Roy
Lewis, Terry


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Lynne, Ms Liz


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Canavan, Dennis
Skinner, Dennis


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Cohen, Harry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Tyler, Paul


Cryer, Bob
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Etherington, Bill
Wallace, James


Foster, Don (Bath)
Welsh, Andrew


Harvey, Nick



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Johnston, Sir Russell
Mr. Archy Kirkwood,




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ashby, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Aspinwall, Jack


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Amess, David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Arbuthnot, James
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)






Bates, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Batiste, Spencer
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bellingham, Henry
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bendall, Vivian
Gorst, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Body, Sir Richard
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Booth, Hartley
Hague, William


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hanley, Jeremy


Brandreth, Gyles
Hannam, Sir John


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hawkins, Nick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren


Burns, Simon
Hayes, Jerry


Burt, Alistair
Heald, Oliver


Butcher, John
Hendry, Charles


Butler, Peter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carrington, Matthew
Horam, John


Carttiss, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cash, William
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dover, Den
Knox, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Durant, Sir Anthony
Legg, Barry


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Eggar, Tim
Lidington, David


Elletson, Harold
Lightbown, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Faber, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Andrew


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Maclean, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marland, Paul


Forth, Eric
Marlow, Tony


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Mates, Michael


Gale, Roger
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gallie, Phil
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Merchant, Piers


Garnier, Edward
Mills, Iain


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)





Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moate, Sir Roger
Spink, Dr Robert


Monro, Sir Hector
Spring, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moss, Malcolm
Stephen, Michael


Needham, Richard
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Allan


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sykes, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Ottaway, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Paice, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Pawsey, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pickles, Eric
Tracey, Richard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tredinnick, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trend, Michael


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Richards, Rod
Viggers, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robathan, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waterson, Nigel


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Watts, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wells, Bowen


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whitney, Ray


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whittingdale, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Tom
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Willetts, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilshire, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shersby, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Sims, Roger
Yeo, Tim


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)



Soames, Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Speed, Sir Keith
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Spencer, Sir Derek



Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments): —

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 121.

Division No. 151]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bates, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Ancram, Michael
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Body, Sir Richard


Ashby, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Booth, Hartley


Atkins, Robert
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowis, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Baldry, Tony
Brandreth, Gyles






Brazier, Julian
Hannam, Sir John


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, Andrew


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Harris, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hawkins, Nick


Burns, Simon
Hawksley, Warren


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, Jerry


Butcher, John
Heald, Oliver


Butler, Peter
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carttiss, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cash, William
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clappison, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunter, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Jack, Michael


Congdon, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Conway, Derek
Jenkin, Bernard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, Sir David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dover, Den
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan, Alan
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Legg, Barry


Dunn, Bob
Leigh, Edward


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lidington, David


Eggar, Tim
Lightbown, David


Elletson, Harold
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
MacKay, Andrew


Faber, David
Maclean, David


Fabricant, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maitland, Lady Olga


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Malone, Gerald


Fishburn, Dudley
Mans, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marlow, Tony


Forth, Eric
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Merchant, Piers


Gardiner, Sir George
Mills, Iain


Garnier, Edward
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gillan, Cheryl
Moate, Sir Roger


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorst, John
Moss, Malcolm


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Needham, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Grylls, Sir Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nicholls, Patrick


Hague, William
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Norris, Steve


Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hanley, Jeremy
Ottaway, Richard





Page, Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Paice, James
Sykes, John


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Thomason, Roy


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Potter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rathbone, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Richards, Rod
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Riddick, Graham
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trotter, Neville


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Walden, George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sackville, Tom
Waller, Gary


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Shersby, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Sims, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Soames, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Willetts, David


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Spring, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Stephen, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stern, Michael



Stewart, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Sumberg, David





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Alton, David
Eagle, Ms Angela


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Eastham, Ken


Barnes, Harry
Etherington, Bill


Bayley, Hugh
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fatchett, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Betts, Clive
Foster, Don (Bath)


Blunkett, David
Foulkes, George


Boyes, Roland
Garrett, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
George, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Callaghan, Jim
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Graham, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike


Coffey, Ann
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Harvey, Nick


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Home Robertson, John


Dalyell, Tam
Hood, Jimmy


Darling, Alistair
Hoon, Geoffrey


Davidson, Ian
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Dixon, Don
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Hutton, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Illsley, Eric






Jamieson, David
Miller, Andrew


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pike, Peter L.


Jowell, Tessa
Pope, Greg


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C & S)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lewis, Terry
Primarolo, Dawn


Loyden, Eddie
Redmond, Martin


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan


McCartney, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Snape, Peter


McFall, John
Spearing, Nigel


McLeish, Henry
Spellar, John


Maclennan, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mahon, Alice
Tyler, Paul


Marek, Dr John
Wallace, James


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wilson, Brian


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wray, Jimmy


Martlew, Eric



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Michael, Alun
Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its far sighted education reforms which are driving up standards and giving more responsibility to schools, more choice to parents and more opportunities to our young people; believes that the Government's commitment to a high quality education service is further demonstrated by the record sums it is spending; notes that the superficial policies advanced by the Liberal Democratic Party bear remarkable similarity to the policies advanced by Her Majesty's Opposition; further notes that those policies appear to revolve around reversing all the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to raise standards and increase choice; notes the admission by the Liberal Democratic Party that it is a party committed to raising taxes, yet condemns its inability to demonstrate any clear linkage between a demand for more income tax and a well developed and defined set of educational policies on which additional tax revenues are to be spent; and believes that the Liberal Democrats' commitment to education would be better shown by ceasing its practice of campaigning in an underhand fashion against ballots of parents for grant maintained status, which the House utterly deplores.

Community Care

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I beg to move,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 10) (House of Commons Paper No. 218), which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
This report sets out the proposed allocation of the special transitional grant to local authorities in England for the next financial year for expenditure on community care services. It also describes the main features of the grant and the conditions that the Government intend to attach to its use.
I am always happy to discuss the success of community care policy. At this time last year, we were knee-deep in predictions of doom and disaster, and I am pleased—but far from surprised—that we can now look back on a very sound and promising beginning.
No one was more keen to forecast doom and gloom than the Labour party. The Opposition are like Christopher Robin on an off day—kneeling at the foot of their beds praying that something will go wrong. How cross they were when it did not. They said that community care would be underfunded by about £1 billion. Then they dropped their bid to £70 million—I suppose that that was a mere blip in Labour economics.
Social services departments had the nerve to say that they thought that the funding was fair and were savaged by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), to the extent that he provoked a response in Community Care magazine from the director of social services in the London borough of Croydon, who said:
Having failed to alter the national political map for the past 13 years, Blunkett, like so many other disgruntled and frustrated politicians, goes home and kicks the cat; In this case local councillors and directors of social services.
They kicked in vain, however.
The report represents the Government's tangible commitment to the continued success of the new arrangements. It transfers about £736 million to local authorities. Taken together with the funding rolled forward from the current year, that means that, next year, authorities will have more than £1·2 billion available to meet their new community care responsibilities.
Most authorities now realise that, used sensibly, that is sufficient for the job. That sum is, of course, in addition to the personal social services standard spending assessment resources, a substantial part of which has always been used for domiciliary and day services and public sector residential care.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have just come to the House from a meeting about the Government's proposed plans to run down Guy's hospital. Do the figures—in Southwark's case a little more than £6 million—allow for the additional burden on the community care budget of the plans for reducing services in some parts of the capital's health service?

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman referred to the increase that Southwark council is to receive this year. He got the figure wrong, but he got right the fact that it is an increase—from about £56 million to about £66 million, which is an increase of 16·4 per cent. If Southwark council is well managed and can use its resources efficiently—he will have to tell me whether it is, and whether it is capable


of doing that—it will certainly be able to cater for the community care needs of people in the borough during the coming year.
I was saying that I was especially glad that this year we have been able to include a further £20 million in next year's grant over and above the total that had previously been announced. I hope that that will please the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. The aim is to encourage the further development of respite and home care services.
Indeed, the level of diversification, enabling people to have a real choice between staying in their own home—where possible—and moving to residential care is one of the success stories of the past 11 months. In many parts of the country, diversion to domiciliary care is proceeding faster than anyone had expected, and we are getting reports of rates of 10 per cent. or more. That is one of the factors that have allowed us to speed up some of the transitional aspects of the grant.
In particular, we have been able to phase out the use of historical data about income support claims from residents of care homes and nursing homes as a basis for distributing the grant between authorities. Instead, we can now use the personal social services standard spending assessments exclusively, the same basis as for virtually all other social services funding. The effects of the move will benefit more than two thirds of authorities.
Another of this year's successes has been our commitment to real choice for users of community care services, whether residential or domiciliary. Continued success depends on a continuing diversity of service providers, especially in the. independent sector. I have, however, been disturbed by the number of complaints that I have received from proprietors and managers of private and voluntary care homes who allege that some local authorities are willing to waste money by ignoring the independent sector and placing people in much more expensive council-owned establishments.
The importance of the independent sector to community care reforms can hardly be overstated, and the Government will continue to support its role.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: As the Minister said, choice is an important issue. Will he acknowledge that the requirement in the current and the next financial year to spend 85 per cent. of the special transitional grant in the independent sector restricts choice? In many instances, it means forcing people into expensive institutional care because of the lack of domiciliary care and support at a local level.

Mr. Bowis: Of course it does not. Before community care, 100 per cent. of the moneys that came from social security went to the independent sector. We are talking now about the 85 per cent. of the transfer element that we are asking—indeed, requiring—local authorities to spend in the independent sector. It is a modest demand and has nothing to do with the disbursement of the moneys that were previously spent on domiciliary and day care and which came from the broad social service budgets.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage his colleagues in local government to play their part in ensuring that the independent sectors—private and voluntary—can diversify and help to provide a wider choice for people, whether for residential or domiciliary care.
Local authorities should use their purchasing power to develop and stimulate new independent sector services, especially in the day and domiciliary spheres. I expect authorities to consider all potential providers and to strive for quality and value for money at all times. The independent sector has been a major player in community care services for many years, and its expertise must be harnessed to the challenges of the new policy. I want private and voluntary providers to be fully involved in the planning and provision of the range of services needed.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Minister acknowledge that changing from a formula based partly on income support payments and partly on SSAs to a formula based wholly on SSAs seriously disadvantages some authorities? In a letter to me three weeks ago, he said that such a distribution mechanism
involves both winners and losers".
He went on:
I recognise that there are some authorities, like North Yorkshire, whose special transitional grant will be lower next year than they had been anticipating.
In fact, it will be more than £3 million lower, even after assurances that the change would be phased in over a number of years. How does the Minister expect an authority such as North Yorkshire, which has a traditionally low spend—in my view, too low a spend —on social services for the elderly to deal suddenly with a £3 million cut in its budget without severely disadvantaging the elderly people who rely on its services?

Mr. Bowis: I know that the hon. Gentleman will be in close touch with the North Yorkshire social services department, and I ask him to go back and discuss with it the precise figure that we are offering this year. He will find that, instead of a cut, there is an increase of about £10 million—or 15·2 per cent.—for social services as a whole. Will he then ask why, if the social services department in his county is so concerned about its ability to look after local people in need, the authority has underspent by about £5 million on its social services budget in the current year? There was £55 million in its standard spending assessment for this year, but only £50 million in its budget.
We shall again require all authorities to use most of their grant on services provided by the independent sector. Moreover, that condition is cumulative, so that next year authorities' independent sector expenditure must increase significantly over that for this year. I shall also give some thought to our definition of the word "independent". [Laughter.]
The hon. Member for Brightside laughs, and I am not surprised. Many people have laughed at some of the devices employed. I have serious doubts about some homes that in theory have been transferred from councils to charitable trusts and so on, but which do not seem to be truly free from local authority interference and influence. If I think it necessary, I shall amend the definition in the condition accordingly.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Minister comment on our experience in Nottinghamshire, where, when the county council was forced to contemplate the closure of homes, several housing associations and not-for-profit associations in the voluntary sector went through the books with the council to find out whether they could run the schemes?
What am I to say to the housing associations whose representatives have written to me explaining their reason for pulling out of such a transfer was that, on the basis of the existing formula, they would not be able to run the homes without reducing staffing standards to dangerously low levels that would threaten the standard of care for the residents?

Mr. Bowis: For a start, the hon. Gentleman would do well to examine the current record of Nottinghamshire social services department, which is indeed giving us great cause for concern. I have had to invite the director and chairman to come to my office to discuss the situation, and to see how they can put Nottinghamshire social services back on a proper, fair and just footing.
I also suggest that the hon. Gentleman considers the figures and, realising that this year Nottinghamshire's resources will increase from £108 million to £122 million, sees whether he can persuade the county to provide a decent service in the best interests of the people of Nottinghamshire.
We provide more than financial support. We have put in place a careful programme of monitoring and evaluation, and every authority has been visited at least twice to discuss progress, and to offer advice where appropriate. The outcome of the monitoring has been encouraging, and I have already referred to some of it. Not only are the basic structures all in place, but it is clear that people are already being offered more appropriate support.
Generally, people who would previously have looked to the social security system for-support can now get a timely assessment of their needs. There do not seem to be widespread backlogs. However, a number of authorities report that their procedures have turned out to be over-complex. They are reviewing them, and I hope that that will lead to simpler and more comprehensive procedures. I am also conscious of the message that I have received from my own national users and carers group that the information and communications for users and potential users leaves room for considerable improvement.
Fortunately, a great deal of enthusiasm and energy seem to be going into improving consultation with and involvement of both users and carers. There are welcome signs of users and carers becoming much more involved in the assessment procedures, although there is still a long way to go.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Is my hon. Friend aware that many independent care home proprietors are worried because local authorities are unfairly preferring local authority homes when making referrals, and also unfairly applying much higher inspection standards to private care homes than they apply to their own premises?

Mr. Bowis: I am aware that that is alleged, and also that, if it were happening, it would be wrong, because public sector homes are required to be inspected and assessed according to the same standards as are set for voluntary and private sector homes.
I am equally aware, as my hon. Friend says, that, in some parts of the country, perhaps in parts of his own area, there are examples of people being persuaded to go into residential care homes in the public sector which are more expensive than appropriate and suitable accommodations available in the independent sectors.

Mr. Hinchliffe: rose—

Mr. Bowis: I am responding to an intervention from my hon. Friend.
The Audit Commission is one of the monitoring organisations which consider the cost and value for money of community care, and I expect it to draw it to the attention of local authority social services departments should it find that that is the case. Of course, that will become apparent as the year progresses.

Mr. Hinchliffe: On the issue of the choice of people and the question of the use of local authority accommodation, is it not a simple fact that vast numbers of older people prefer to go into local authority accommodation because that accommodation is of a good standard, and especially because it is often located in areas where those people have lived all their lives? The Government are destroying that choice, because they are deliberately attempting to close down local authority accommodation. Where does the choice of local authority homes lie in the Government's policy?

Mr. Bowis: It is for local people, local authorities and local social services to decide the sort of provision they may or may not wish to provide in their own sector. It is also up to them to purchase, on behalf of people whose needs they have assessed, suitable accommodation in residential care where that is the preference—as opposed to domiciliary care—of the individual who has been assessed. That individual should then have a choice under our statutory direction of choice on the home to which he or she is directed. That choice can be there in the public sector as in the independent sectors.
What I am saying, what my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) is saying and what far too many care home managers and owners are saying, is that, all too often, that choice is not real in Labour authorities, which seek to promote their own homes at the expense of choice for the individuals who wish to choose homes in the independent sectors. I hope that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) will begin to support us on that line, instead of showing his innate hostility to the private sector.
On bed blocking, the dire predictions of some people have also happily proved unfounded. Some parts of the country are reporting lower levels than before April. There have been some small isolated problems, for which local managers have been prepared and which they have been able to deal with, as we expected.
Joint working between local authorities and the national health service is also generally good. The agreements we required them to make on discharge arrangements and placements in nursing homes have had a positive effect, and there are welcome signs of commitment to joint development. That condition is one that I am repeating this year.
That is the big picture, but I have also been impressed by earlier reports of what it has been possible to achieve for individual users of services. For example, the lady with a husband suffering from dementia who wanted him to be cared for at home has been able to receive 28 hours of home help each week, district nursing, and two weeks' respite care in every six.
Another lady with significant health problems, who would previously have had to enter a residential care home, has been able to stay in her own home, thanks to a


comprehensive package of care—meals on wheels, home help seven days a week, respite care to ease her isolation, district nursing, various aids and adaptations and a laundry service. All the ladies so worried about coping alone—

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Where?

Mr. Bowis: Of course, the Opposition do not want to hear these things, because they are examples of the success of the policy. As I began by saying, they are only happy when they think that the policy is not working. If they will listen, I am giving examples of people who are benefiting from the policy, such as the lady who was so worried about coping alone that she was thinking of moving into residential care, but was reassured when her local authority arranged for someone to visit each night before she went to bed to ensure that the gas was turned off and the house was locked up.

Ms Tessa Jowell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bowis: In a minute.
Equally, I have seen good examples of the provision of residential care, such as the lady who woke up one night to find a burglar in her room and decided that she needed to move to a home for reassurance and company, and who was able to choose a home where friends of her Church of denomination were living.

Ms Jowell: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House celebrate examples where community care is working well. Can the Minister tell the House which authorities these examples have been taken from?

Mr. Bowis: I wish that the hon. Lady would replace some Labour Front-Bench Members, because this is the first time that I have heard from Labour Members a recognition that the reforms are going well? When we produce examples selected—

Mr. Morgan: Where?

Mr. Bowis: —from around the country as a result of the monitoring process, the hon. Lady will celebrate those successes, even if Labour Front-Bench Members will not.
It has been said that the implementation of the community care reforms marked the beginning of a decade of change, rather than an overnight revolution. That is perfectly true. It is now clear that the early days of the reforms represent a satisfactory foundation for that decade —a view shared by many other observers, including the Audit Commission and the Association of Directors of Social Services. [Interruption.] The Opposition spokesman on health is in the wrong debate. This is about local authorities in England. If he listens, perhaps he will learn some lessons for Wales as well.

Mr. David Blunkett: Given the Minister's flattery of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), perhaps he will now answer her question and tell us which English authorities he drew his examples from.

Mr. Bowis: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the examples come from a variety of areas of the country, and we could give him many more if he so wishes.
The point is that the policy's success is a tribute to the considerable efforts made up and down the country by local authorities, health authorities and users and carers.

We need to be vigilant to ensure that that progress continues. I look forward to the next year of community care with some confidence, and I commend the report to the House.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: The Opposition welcome this opportunity to have an albeit brief debate on Special Grant Report (No. 10). I think that people would be alarmed if they knew how rarely we get the opportunity in the House to discuss such an important subject as community care. As the Minister said, the report contains the amount of grant to be made available to individual local authorities during the second year of operation of the changed community care arrangements.
In view of the Minister's comments, it is worth reminding the House that Labour supported the broad thrust of the community care provisions in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 as a means of unravelling the mess created by the Government's ill-thought-out, publicly funded expansion of private institutional care.
In many respects, the arrangements set out in the report are still constrained by the same Government preoccupation with the market that we heard throughout the Minister's speech. That preoccupation led to the need for the 1990 changes in the first place. Labour believe that as long as Government policy remains more concerned about the interests of private providers of care than about service users and their carers, genuine community care reform will remain a long way away.
As the Minister is well aware, the central motivation for the changes introduced last April was Exchequer anxiety over the soaring cost of DSS expenditure on income support claims made by residents of care and nursing homes. Following a change of policy in 1981, those rose from £11 million per annum to £2·5 billion per annum in the past financial year, and constituted a £10 billion investment in the resurrection of institutional care as the central plank of the Government's community care policy. A vast number of people entered private residential care and nursing homes without any formal assessment whatever, and many could and would have been able to remain in their own homes if some of those resources had been invested in genuine community care.
Last April's changes aimed to address what has been now recognised as the gross misuse of public funding. The Opposition fully supported the introduction of care planning at local authority level and, in particular, the arrangements for assessing care needs. Our worry, however, is that in the funding arrangements for both the first and the second year of care, the changes are placing deliberate barriers in the way of the achievement of progress in community care provision.
When the House debated the current year's funding arrangements on 11 February and 3 March 1993, as set out in the special grant reports 6 and 7, I made clear the Opposition's concern over the adequacy of grant mechanisms used for its distribution, and the requirement on local authorities to spend 85 per cent. of that in what the Government call the independent sector. I wish to reiterate some of these concerns tonight, but, before I do, perhaps I can issue one word of welcome to the Minister. He should make the best of it, as it might be the only one he gets.
The Minister is aware that the Opposition felt that the formula used to distribute the current year's special transitional grant was profoundly unfair, and that it verged on the bizarre. The grant was based 50 per cent. on the individual local authority's standard spending assessment and 50 per cent. on the previous income support claims by people in private care and nursing homes in the area. The nonsense of that formula was that it was weighted heavily in favour of councils with the most private care and nursing homes, despite the fact that many of the residents concerned originated from other local authority areas and had preserved their entitlement to continuing income support payments being unaffected by the changes.
I know that the Minister was concerned about the unfairness of the formula. He intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) during the debate on 3 March, and said:
the allocation is perhaps weighted towards rural areas—as opposed to the inner cities"—[Official Report, 3 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 401.]
The Minister shares my concern about that point.
The unfairness of the formula to which I have referred was brought home to me most strongly when I went to an establishment in the constituency of my hon. Freind the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). Nightingale House, which may be known to the Minister, is a Jewish home which is jointly registered as a care and nursing home, and offers nearly 400 places. Many of the residents receive income support and their claims counted in the grant calculation for the local authority in which the home is situated, even though most of the claimants originated from other local authority areas.
It is clearly coincidental that the local authority gaining grant in this way is Wandsworth, because, in certain other respects, that authority, like nearly all London boroughs and many metropolitan authorities, lost out badly under the formula used during the current year. If the funding had been distributed on the basis of SSA—as it will be in 1994–95—Wandsworth would have nearly £900,000 more in its existing budget.
The fact that London boroughs alone lost nearly £25 million as a result of the first year of community care changes puts the Secretary of State's announcement last Thursday of an extra £10 million for London's mental health provision into some perspective.
Regardless of arguments about the overall care funding, the majority of local authorities—68 out of 108—lost substantially on the grant that they received during the first year. Sheffield lost over £2 million, Southwark lost £1·7 million, and Leeds lost £1·3 million. Smaller authorities such as Wakefield—my own local authority—lost nearly £1 million. Those are huge chunks of resources which should have been made available on the basis of the Government's calculation of population needs.
Many councils have struggled desperately to make decent care available against a background of the totally inadequate special transitional grant and, according to the Association of Directors of Social Services, alongside spending freezes and cuts in the base budgets of social services departments in the current year. The association obviously welcomes the fact that the Government have abandoned their previously discredited distribution formula and, in this report, are moving to SSA as a basis for the formula.
While the Opposition applaud the Government's long-overdue conversion to common sense, we would strongly press the Minister to address the problems that have arisen during this first year because the formula was completely wrong.
First, the Minister should address the serious difficulties facing those authorities that have lost out on millions of pounds in the current year. Secondly—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley); my hon. Friend has left the Chamber, but he made an important point—the Minister should recognise that authorities that gained in the first year will, in many instances, come down to earth with a severe bump as a result of the contents of the report. The Government have bungled the funding arrangements badly and made the proper planning of community care year on year a total impossibility.
The original funding formula was badly skewed because the Government acceded to pressure from the private care home industry, which feared the impact of the care changes. The difficulties facing so many local authorities stem from the fact that the Government take more notice of the business interests of private providers than the needs of users and carers. They relate to a manifestly inappropriate market ideology at Government level, which is holding back in so many ways properly planned and thought-out responses to the needs of users and carers. The Minister's speech was full of phrases such as "use of the independent sector". The Government's policy is not to provide what people positively choose or need. It is use of the independent sector, right or wrong. That is not good enough.
The Government have conceded that their previous distribution formula was wrong. But in this report, they continue to shackle the development of genuine community care, again by insisting that 85 per cent. of the special transitional grant should be spent in the so-called independent sector. That requirement stems purely and simply from an ideological desire by the Government to protect the interests of private care providers and extend their involvement into domiciliary care.
The Government are again putting their obsession with market forces before the real interests of those who receive services. That obsession is clearly preventing the provision of a range of services geared to offering alternatives to institutional care.
I am sure that the Minister will be aware that social services directors and local authority associations have urged the Government to review their 85 per cent. requirement because it obstructs proper community care provision. I have no doubt that the Department of Health's intelligence networks have advised the Minister that in the past few weeks the Labour party has undertaken a survey of directors of social services on the impact of the 85 per cent. requirement. We shall publish the detailed results within the next few weeks and, as usual, I shall sent the Minister a copy.
The initial findings of the survey are worrying. It is clear from the range of responses received that the 85 per cent. requirement means for many people unnecessary admissions to residential care because in various parts of the country private or voluntary sector domiciliary care remains either non-existent or minimal. It says a great deal about the Government's priorities on community care that they are prepared to see unnecessary and expensive institutional care used inappropriately because of a


dogmatic refusal to allow special transitional grants to be used to extend and improve local authority care home provision.
The Minister will recall that, shortly before Christmas, the chief social services inspector and the chief executive of the national health service management executive wrote local authorities a letter saying that their decisions on community care expenditure should be based on value-for-money grounds. But we have been told by local authorities in the survey that we have undertaken in the past couple of weeks that the requirement to spend 85 per cent. in the independent sector is bringing them into direct conflict with that directive. It is causing them to misuse and waste their scarce resources in unnecessary admissions to institutional care. Will the Minister state which directive has precedence—the 85 per cent. requirement or the Laming-Langlands letter? I shall give way if the Minister wishes to respond to this point because I could do with a drink of water.

Mr. Bowis: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said in response to his intervention in my speech, he would recall that I reminded him that, in the past, what is represented by the 85 per cent. for the independent sector was 100 per cent. for the independent sector. We are talking about the money that previously went direct to the independent sector to look after the residents in those homes. Substantial resources are available from the social services general budget which traditionally have been used to support people in part III homes and in domiciliary and day care.
I should like to know what the hon. Gentleman is doing to ensure that authorities controlled by his party look to use that money sensibly, wisely and in the best interests of individuals. It is in their interests that the widest possible choice is made available. That includes, of course, the services provided by the independent sectors, private and voluntary.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The House will have noticed that the Minister failed to answer the question that I put to him. I repeat that question. Does the 85 per cent. requirement take precedence over the Laming-Langlands letter? it is as simple as that. The House requires an answer—[Interruption.] If the Minister has now received a message from his officials, I shall willingly give way to him again.
We have clear evidence that the 85 per cent. requirement is forcing people into unnecessary and expensive institutional care that they do not need. Local authority directors are telling us that, and they must be telling the Department of Health. What will the Minister do to unravel that mess? Does he wish to intervene?

Mr. Bowis: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hinchliffe: He does not wish to do so—the House will draw its own conclusions from that.
I want to make it clear that the Opposition's argument is not simply that there has been an underinvestment in community care. The Government, through their obsession with private provision—which the Minister mentioned throughout his speech—have grossly misused the resources provided.
What could have been achieved if much of the £10 billion investment, through supplementary benefit and income support payments in private residential and nursing homes, had been used instead to develop real community

care where people need it? People need home care, day care, day and night sitting services, meals provision, communication technology, aids and adaptation, respite provision and the range of mental welfare services that can provide safe and caring alternatives to psychiatric hospitals. What could have been achieved if the Government had not abandoned community care to the market?
The Government are now trapped. Private home owners are screaming at them because referrals for permanent care are falling—we have heard their views represented tonight by Conservative Back Benchers. How sad it is that the Government seem to see their task as ensuring a continued and wholly inappropriate use of outdated institutional provision simply because it is in the private sector. The Opposition recognise that the non-statutory sector has a role to play in care provision, but that role has to advance the development of community care, not hold it back.

Mr. David Congdon: If the hon. Gentleman means what he says, why does he not encourage social service departments to promote the development of the private sector in domiciliary and home help services rather than obstruct their development?

Mr. Hinchliffe: Unlike, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman, I worked for many years in a social services department. When dealing with someone in need, one does not bother about which sector provides the services, but merely tries to provide for that person's needs. The hon. Gentleman suggests that social services departments, with all their massive daily pressures, should have to spend time on trying to find entrepreneurs, who simply do not exist in many areas.
The second issue that the hon. Gentleman should consider is that such providers are not regulated or inspected. They are not registered, and could come straight out of prison or from the courts, with all sorts of convictions. They could enter people's homes and offer domiciliary and physical care. They could be dealing with an old person's finances—the Labour party do not believe that such people should offer community care.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman paints a picture of a divided Britain that I find distressing. In my local district, the purchasing authority has made it perfectly clear that it will not buy services from people who do not meet the standards that it has laid down. It has had no difficulties, and I do not understand why other local authorities cannot make the same decisions.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in social services, for which I commend him. But he has missed a fundamental aspect of the checks and guidelines on domiciliary care, as has the Minister. We are assuming—as the Minister does constantly—that all domiciliary care is provided through the contracting process. Vast numbers of elderly and disabled people purchase domiciliary care directly, without the involvement of the local authority. They have no safeguards. The fact that the Government are not acting on that is disgraceful, and the Minister knows it.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Greatly increased resources are available to social services departments. He said that he used to work in a social services department; I bet that he never had a year such as Wakefield did this year. with resources increasing from


£29 million to £40 million. More money is available, and if we are asking for a proportion of that to be spent in the independent sector, that means more money for domiciliary care in the independent sector, over which there is control through the contractor. We are able to ensure that standards are required of the voluntary or private sector placing tenders for domiciliary services.
The problem is that too many authorities run by the hon. Member's party refuse to put out a specification so that the independent sector can tender at all.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I am happy to debate until the cows come home the position of Wakefield social services and its financial situation. Nobody was more surprised than the acting director of social services in Wakefield when the Minister quoted those figures last Tuesday. I have a letter here which, if the Minister cares to read it, I will pass over to him and which shows that the way in which the Minister has come to calculate the questions is beyond everybody in Wakefield.
If the transitional grant is put to one side, there is to be a real reduction in the revenue budget for 1994–95 of £400,000, in order that the council can avoid being capped. When the Minister talks about SSA, special transitional grant and all the other things that he mentions, he seems to forget that, although we are being given all these generous resources, local authorities, including a responsible local authority such as Wakefield, are also being capped. I am proud of my local authority and I will debate with the Minister, if he wishes, the issues of deep concern to me in my own locality.
I was saying that the Opposition genuinely recognise that the non-statutory sector has a role to play when it is developing community care, innovating, offering new services; but the sad fact is that in so many respects the private sector, in particular, is hanging on to outdated models of institutional provision that are totally inappropriate to this day and age.
I have certainly seen in the private sector excellent examples that can offer something of genuine relevance to people's comunity care needs. I have looked in some detail, as I think the Minister is aware, at communication technology, where what is on offer from the private sector enhances real choices and opportunities for those in need of care and does not hold back the development of community care, as is unfortunately happening in some respects at present.
I urge the Minister seriously to consider the problem being caused by the 85 per cent. requirement. I am not suggesting that he drop the specific quota in its entirety, as I understand the need to safeguard the voluntary sector, in particular, for example, in those areas concerning drug and alcohol provision where the voluntary sector has a specific role to play—a role of which the Minister is well aware and which, like me, he values very much. But the 50:50 split suggested by the local authority associations would, I am sure, enable a radical improvement in care provision and overcome many of the problems that I have mentioned.
The Minister has again implied that the Government have been somehow generous in their special transitional grant provision. It is important to make it clear that the STG is money for new local authority responsibilities which would have been spent anyway by the Department of Social Security. May I press him again on the point that

he did not answer in last week's health Question Time and which he has not referred to tonight? If the funding is, as he suggests, so generous, why are the Government urging local authorities to introduce charges for basic care services that have been freely provided in many areas from the time that they were first introduced? He must be aware that that is a matter of huge concern in various parts of the country, especially, for example, to the parents of young people with learning disabilities who find themselves being charged quite high prices for the attendance of their sons and daughters at day care establishments. Many people feel that to be totally inappropriate and highly insensitive. I should welcome the Minister's comments on that point.
Our debate takes place against the background of growing public concern about the Government's community care policy. As the Minister knows, my party has consistently supported the development of community care, but we recognise that the Government's commitment to market forces in health and care obstructs and undermines strategic planning at national and local level and the achievement of a seamless service.
It is an unfortunate coincidence that tonight's debate takes place only a few days after the publication of two separate reports concerning the care of the mentally ill, both of which expose the fundamental contradictions of Government policy. The first, with which the Minister will be familiar, was commissioned by the North West Thames health authority and found that managers of a proposed health trust were so obsessed with achieving trust status that they neglected disturbing shortcomings in care that may have contributed to the deaths of some 14 patients.
The second report concerns the case of Mr. Christopher Clunis. I am surprised that the Minister did not refer to that important and tragic case. Mr. Clunis, who suffered from schizophrenia, caused the death of Mr. Jonathan Zito in December 1992. The report clearly demonstrates that the Government have yet to start proper co-ordination and collaboration of care provision at a local level. It exposes how the lack of resources contributed to that appalling tragedy and shows how limited the alternatives to hospital care still are.
I am genuinely sorry that the Secretary of State, who is not present in the Chamber tonight, chose to try to make political capital out of this issue at the weekend, singling out a Labour council for specific mention, when page 105 of the report clearly states:
We do not single out just one person, service or agency for particular blame".
I pay sincere tribute to Jonathan Zito's widow, Jayne, who, since her husband's death, has campaigned ceaselessly and courageously for proper care and help to be given to the likes of Christopher Clunis. I urge the Minister to listen to her message—a message not of vengeance and malice but of genuine concern for the likes of her husband's killer who, as she says, have been condemned to a life of degradation and poverty. On Thursday, she said:
It is not enough to make a market out of mental health. These people need care and supervision. You cannot compete when you are dealing with people's lives".
For those very reasons and the other concerns that I have expressed, I urge all hon. Members who share our anxieties about community care to join us in the No Lobby at the end of the debate.

Mr. Barry Field: May I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the 20th anniversary yesterday of your arrival in this House? My hon. Friends and I hope that it will be many years before you require community care.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) because he attended the conference on the Isle of Wight when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the ring fencing of funds for community care. I know from recent conversations with the hon. Gentleman how seriously he takes community care. He observed me in the Members' car park with my car engine running and was so concerned about my welfare that he returned three hours later to make sure that I was all right.
On the Isle of Wight, 26·4 per cent. of the population are of pensionable age. That is the 17th highest percentage in England and Wales, where the national average is 18·7 per cent. Moreover, 18·8 per cent. of households consist of one pensioner living alone, which is 3·7 per cent. above the national average of 15·1 per cent. Care in the community is, therefore, of considerable importance to the island.
I wish to raise two points. The first concerns Haylands farm at Ryde, which was formed under the auspices of Mencap in 1977 and provides sheltered work for mentally handicapped students. It has a number of sheep and goats, sells 300 eggs locally, and rears pigs that are sold as meat. The farm extends to more than 16 acres, most of which are owned by the Isle of Wight county council, which charges a fair and unsubsidised rent. One acre is owned by Mencap.
The farm is entirely supported by donations of money and its own manpower and materials. It is now recognised as a day centre unit by the Isle of Wight county council and receives very limited funding. The local authority should purchase the services and facilities offered by the farm under the care in the community legislation. The farm meets all the requirements of a provider of services but does not get much of the cash. For the past three years, the county council has promised to put the farm on a permanent financial basis but, unfortunately, it still staggers from month to month. A number of us on the island are concerned that that excellent facility continues to have that problem.
My second point is about the concerns of members of the Isle of Wight Registered Care Homes Association. We seem to have made a little progress on funding. When the funding was first announced, we were told that it would run out in July. We are now told that it might stretch until September. Clearly, things have moved on a little.
I should like to explore the possibility of using any notified underspending by councils against their 1993–94 special transitional grant allocation. First, let me make it quite clear that the Isle of Wight county council has not suffered a cut in community care funding in 1993–94. The council received £2·354 million in special transitional grant funding. The figure for 1994–95 is £3·376 million, an increase of just under £1 million on the pervious year. I should like my hon. Friend to tell me in due course whether he has yet reached a decision on the possibility of the unused STG money being reallocated to the Isle of Wight and I hope to hear from him shortly as to whether that is possible.
There is and always has been considerable mistrust on the island between the councillors and the private sector. To try to reduce that, I asked the private sector to set up its

own association, which it did, and by and large that has done a great deal to break down the barriers of suspicion and mistrust so often voiced by Liberal councillors about the private sector when I was a county councillor. The private sector still has misgivings about the county councillors' operation of Islecare and the way it was financed, the subsidies that the county council day care facilities receive and the almost total lack of opportunity for the private sector to participate in the provision of those care facilities. Having said that, while I would like to see the councillors take a step back from the management of the companies providing these facilities, as well as the residential homes in competition with the private sector, the district auditor might yet feel compelled to insist that the whole arrangement must become more transparent and arm's length—at least, I hope so.
Despite that caveat, community care is working well on the island, and to some extent I suspect that part of the difficulty is the fact that so many elderly people are now being maintained in their own homes—the very intention of community care. However, I believe—and the Minister's letter shows—that the formula has worked against the interests of the Isle of Wight this year and that there is a problem.
I consider it my job to separate the hype and attention-seeking tendencies of the leader of the council whose ability to deploy extravagant language has created more tension in the Isle of Wight than Lindy St. Clair's stays and whose contribution to a reasoned debate is about as welcome as woodworm in a rowing boat, but I would be remiss not to bring the concerns of Haylands farm and the Isle of Wight Registered Care Homes Association to the attention of my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
As so often happens in the House, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I therefore leave the last word to Mike Leyshon, the editor of the association's newsletter entitled, "Homing In". On page 17 he writes:
What are we really faced with here? A few less social service funded placements each. A faster rate of contraction of our market than originally predicted. A dozen or so businesses pushed over the edge on which they may have been teetering for some time. It may be most care homes will survive this year's struggle, some may even prosper".

Ms Liz Lynne: The report that we are discussing tonight gives us a rare chance to debate community care, an issue of great importance to many constituents of many right hon. and hon. Members.
Unfortunately, we are limited tonight to debating the money that the Government consider sufficient to fund community care and how they have decided that that money should be allocated.
On the first point, it is quite clear to me that the resources that the Government have allocated to fund care in the community are totally inadequate. One need not take my word for it; one has just to read the report of the inquiry into the Christopher Clunis case. In what has been universally acclaimed an excellent report—including by Jonathan Zito's widow, Jayne—the inquiry team declared that the care and treatment of Christopher Clunis was a
catalogue of failure and missed opportunity in which lack of resources played a part.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) raised the Clunis case. It is a


tragic case. We take it seriously, as indeed we would any other instance of a breakdown in the care of people with mental health problems. But the hon. Lady should recall and remind the House that the Clunis-Zito case pre-dates community care. We are talking about a case in 1992, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. We are now talking about resources for community care that started on 1 April 1993. The hon. Lady should recall that the background to that case and the report, as the hon. Gentleman said, mentioned a number of areas in terms of discharge, information, communication and so on. Reference was made to the resources for medium-secure units, particularly in London, but that does not relate to the report, important as it is.

Ms Lynne: I am grateful to the Minister. He must realise, however, that the report stated that lack of resources played a part. We must address that in this debate on resources for community care. I do not think that we can ignore it. I know that other parts of the report stress that lack of monitoring was a problem. I sincerely wish that when the Government brought in care in the community —I am grateful that they did—they had set up the proper monitoring. If they had, we might not be in the state that we are now in. Resources played a part and there is no way that the Government can get away from that fact.

Mr. Bowis: That was before community care.

Ms Lynne: It might have been before community care, but that does not make it—[Interruption.] The lack of resources is still there—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue with my speech? In response to that, the Secretary of State announced a further £10 million—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I should be most grateful if the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) would either listen to the hon. Lady, who is making an important speech, or retire—[Interruption.] Order. I do not know who the hon. Gentleman is pointing to, but I am not interested. He should either stay quiet and listen to the hon. Lady or go out of the Chamber.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. The point that she is making is important. In response to her comments on the Clunis case, the Minister seems to imply that community care suddenly began on 1 April last year. Community care has existed for generations, before most if not all those in the Chamber tonight were born. She is right to say that of course community care existed when the Clunis tragedy happened. The Minister must address that fact.

Ms Lynne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.

Mr. Bowis: The point is that this tragic case pre-dates community care as funded under the report this year, and the report of last year.

Mr. Morgan: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Bowis: It is exactly what I said.

Mr. Morgan: No, it is not.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Bowis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Lady should address her remarks to the resources for community care that she would like to see, bearing in mind that over the four years we are raising them to £2·2 billion.

Ms Lynne: I am grateful to the Minister. I will reach that point in my speech, but we must take into account the Christopher Clunis report, because it was extremely damning of the Government. It is essential to remember that.
What was the response by the Secretary of State for Health? She announced a further £10 million for mental health care in the capital. That is a nice round figure, and appears to be generous, but do we have any idea whether that is enough? I do not think that we do, because there is no monitoring system. Will that money be new, or will it be diverted from another cash-starved programme? I would like the Minister to answer that when he replies.
Another illuminating comment arising from the Clunis inquiry was in section 52.0.1 of the report, which says:
it has been noticeable how little routine attention appears to have been paid by anybody to the quality or outcome measurement of the community management of mentally ill people.
The report added, in section 52.0.2:
purchasers do not know what they are buying nor do providers know what they are selling. No one has a means of telling whether the community service provided is an effective or an efficient use of resources.
Essentially, no one knows what they are doing, how much it costs or whether they are meeting the needs of the people whom they are meant to serve.
How, then, did the Government reach the conclusion that £10 million was enough? How, for that matter, did they reach the conclusion that the money that we are debating tonight was adequate for the various needs that must be met by social services departments across the country? The Government need to set standards for community care, and then openly determine the resources that are needed to meet those standards. If that is more than they can currently afford to pay, let them at least have the decency to be honest with the electorate and say so. Perhaps they could also consider giving the electorate the freedom to decide whether they want more resources to be spent on community care.
If we cannot be convinced that the Government have provided enough resources for community care nationally, can we be convinced that the available resources have been distributed fairly? Again, I am not convinced. Last year, the DSS transfer was distributed in a way that took into account the historic income support expenditure. As I am sure hon. Members know, that was done to take account of the past costs to the DSS of supporting people in residential and nursing homes.
It had been suggested that the use of past income support data would continue for the next few years, although it would be tapered off. Instead, the Government have decided to rely entirely on the standard spending assessment as the means of calculating the amount required by each local authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) pointed out in a debate on this issue last year, it has been admitted by many—including the Government, or so it seemed at the time—that the SSA system was not right.
At that time, there was a commitment to review the system. Has that review taken place, and did it take community care responsibilities into account? Did the


Minister or his Department consult local councils? I am sure that such consultation must have taken place, but I should be delighted to hear that from the Minister. Did he and his Department ask local authority representative bodies for their views on the decision?
It is possible that the decision to rely wholly on the SSA will not affect all regions, although a social services director in my region said that it was too early to say. There is particular concern, however, in areas with especially high numbers of older people. Many retired people have moved to one of our pleasant coastal towns, and social services departments in such areas fear that the SSA does not take into account the effect of that movement. In the south-west, for example, more that £35 million has been taken away; not surprisingly, that is regarded as a devasting blow to the region.
Although any money for community care is welcome, it still concerns me that there is not enough, and that the Government are not open in how they determine what is needed and where it is needed. I also hope that the Minister will look again at the requirement to spend 85 per cent. in the independent sector; I am sure that many social services directors have asked him to do so. I hope that some of my concerns can be remedied.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I shall be brief, but I think it important to contribute my view that community care is working a great deal better than the picture painted by Opposition Members suggests. Recently I met representatives of two of my local health trusts, along with the social services departments and local general practitioners. Morale was extraordinarily high; tribute was paid to the work done by care managers and the way in which they work together to ensure that patients' transition from hospital into the community is as smooth as possible. That is very encouraging.
Sod's law dictates that, as I speak, something is going badly wrong somewhere in a case in Kent. There are millions of relationships every day between social service staff, the private or public sector and individual clients and inevitably things will go wrong. One of the things that has been remarkable about the development of community care in Kent is the willingness of local staff of social services departments, the health department, the general practices, the caring organisations and the voluntary organisations to work together to achieve as good an outcome as possible for their clients.
Speaking as a Member of Parliament, I point out that we have had a dramatic decrease in the number of letters complaining about the way in which people are cared for and I believe that that reflects great credit on the development of community care in Kent. Of course, there are shortcomings. There always will be. We have a rapidly escalating number of people aged over 65; we have a growing number of young people coming from broken homes. Everyone knows that. We could spend twice or three times as much and still be asking for more.
I have drawn the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), to the fact that my local social services people are a little anxious about the cost of some of the equipment that is required to enable people to stay in their own homes. I have no doubt that in the years to come we shall have to consider carefully the sophistication

and technological advances of equipment which makes it possible for people to stay in their own homes but which is very expensive.
I believe that we shall also need to make rapid progress towards giving the public the assurance that social workers are properly qualified. Everyone knows that some staff in social services departments have had an exhaustive training whereas others have not. The introduction of national vocational qualifications has made, or will make, a dramatic difference to the self-confidence and competence of many staff, especially residential care staff and domiciliary staff. I welcome it enormously. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is taking seriously the many occasions on which I and others have urged him to make progress with the social work council, because I think that it is not fair to attack social workers for a lack of professional self-confidence and competence while denying them the right to register as fully qualified professionals or, at any rate, giving them a level of competence that the public can recognise. They may not be fully qualified, but if at least there were a council which said what their qualifications were, the expectations of them would become more realistic.
I strongly believe that community care has been a tremendous improvement on what went before. A vast amount remains to be done, but I have to pay tribute to the remarkable way in which all the people concerned, as far as I can see, in my county, where they have been pioneers in the development of social services, are working together, and to their very clear perception that they are only at the beginning of the type of fruitful relationship that will result in ever-increasing improvements in the care delivered to clients in the community.

Ms Tessa Jowell: There is nothing that divides the House about the desirability of community care. It is beyond dispute that elderly or disabled people are best, and indeed prefer to be, cared for in their own homes for as long as possible. What Opposition Members find so frustrating is the extent to which ideology has replaced a practical debate about what will deliver that objective for elderly and disabled people throughout the country.
I pressed the Minister to give the names of the authorities and people for whom community care was working so well and I recognised them all because of my previous work with the Labour-controlled authorities in Birmingham and Islington and with my present council, in Southwark. They are good news and we should celebrate them. They should not be the subject of ideological point scoring.
Opposition Members are concerned to persuade the Government to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of the community care that people want and need being delivered to people in their own homes. What users of community care and their carers tell us time and again is pretty consistent. It is of little importance who provides what they get. In many cases, people do not even know who provides the care that they receive. A recent study shows that about 40 per cent. of people thought that social security was provided by the local authority.
Flexibility, reliability and affordability are what matters. Research evidence about what residents of homes for the elderly value shows that it has little to do with


whether the home is run by the local authority or by an independent provider. However, elderly people view the sudden and often unannounced changes of management that are a feature of the private sector as one of the most disruptive influences. Homes change owners about every three years—that is a good run—and every change is profoundly disrupting for the elderly residents.
The Minister talked about local authorities giving preference to putting people into their homes, when the Government have erected every obstacle to local authorities continuing to act as providers of residential care. The role of local authorities in the provision of that care for the elderly has never been more important. Elderly people are being admitted, on average, to residential care when they are 10 years older than they were 10 years ago —[Laughter.] Will hon. Members just listen to my point, because it is a serious matter?
Ten years ago people were admitted to residential care when they were in their early 70s, but the average age for admission now is the early 80s, when people are much more frail and dependent. Invariably, their care needs are beyond the resources of most independent, private care homes. It is relatively easy to find an independent care home for someone who is not dependent, incontinent or demented. It is much more difficult to find a place in the private sector for an elderly person who requires that level of care. The local authority, therefore, has to provide the essential backstop of reliable, available care. The Government have put every conceivable obstacle—financial and otherwise—in the way of local authorities trying to continue to offer that choice to the relatives of elderly people contemplating residential care.
My constituents have little access to nursing homes locally—I believe that there are about 12 nursing home beds in the whole of Southwark. If my constituents need to be admitted to a nursing home, they have to move many miles away to get the care that they need, which makes journeys difficult for families who wish to visit them. That leads me to another component of the complex web of factors which cannot be ignored in judging the success of community care.
One reason why the independent or private nursing home sector has grown at such a rate is that it is an aspect of care which was previously provided free of charge by the national health service and which is now almost entirely in the private sector. If one is looking for an element of care which was previously provided free by the health service and which has now been effectively privatised, one needs look no further than nursing home care for elderly people.
I refer now to some of the comments made in the wake of the thorough inquiry into the murder of Jonathan Zito by Christopher Clunis. I think that all hon. Members will accept that the Christopher Clunis case sets back the cause of community care by 20 years. One tragedy obscures the hundreds of thousands of success stories that have been part of community care for people with mental illness for the best part of 30 years.
It is important not to forget what a long haul mental illness is for many people who may suffer from it for most of their life. I was reminded of that recently when I opened the Ivydale centre in my constituency. It provides excellent community mental health support for people living in

south Southwark. I met again three or four regular users of the centre whom I knew from working as a psychiatric social worker at the Maudsley day hospital in the early 1970s. For them, mental illness and the certainty of a recurrence is a way of life.
I remember very well a man whom I will call Terry. He is in touch with people who use the Ivydale centre. When I worked at the Maudsley day hospital, he was being admitted for the 17th time. The consultant psychiatrist reminded everyone that it was a cause for celebration that he had stayed out for three weeks longer than ever before. It is no good regarding care for people who suffer from mental illness as a series of one-off, acute episodes. It is important to consider the type of care that will support people who become chronically ill for the rest of their life.
The conclusions of the Christopher Clunis inquiry make it important that the debate is conducted on the basis of fact, not muddied by some of the myths that are creeping in as a substitute for fact. How many Christopher Clunises are there likely to be? About 1 per cent. of the population suffers from schizophrenia and, of that 1 per cent., a further 1 per cent. is likely to become seriously mentally ill as Christopher Clunis became seriously mentally ill—a top estimate of no more than 4,000 at any one time.
We also need to remember that all those people who have committed serious offences while disturbed were known to their local services, all were young, and none had ever been long-stay patients in hospitals. So their circumstances had nothing to do with the closure of long-stay mental hospitals. However, what the Christopher Clunis inquiry has raised so sharply is need, and the desperate need in south-east London, for guaranteed funding for the number of medium secure places needed for people who suffer from serious mental illness so that the rest of the mental health services can function properly. I hope that the Minister will give a guarantee that such places will be provided.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Will my hon. Friend highlight one more important aspect of the Clunis case —the fact that the introduction of the market system has made self-referral almost impossible in inner London and other inner city areas for people suffering from an acute illness? The introduction of the contract system has eradicated self-referral within the system, which in turn makes it almost impossible for the individual concerned to seek emergency services.

Ms Jowell: I shall bring my remarks quickly to a close, but I must reiterate my concern that medium secure places in south-east London should receive the planned funding that is needed, and that the Government's current proposal to require 75 per cent. of funding for people who are mentally abnormal offenders to be met from capitation funding should be dropped.

Mr. Hinchliffe: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make one or two concluding comments. I am pleased to follow the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), who speaks with such great knowledge and experience of the issues before us. I repeat what she said—that we want community care to be a success. Although there are significant


differences between us, which have been aired tonight, there is a consensus in the House that we all wish to aim in that direction.
I shall reinforce some points that have been made by other hon. Members and make one or two points that have not yet been made. The position of carers is one of the issues that we have not touched on specifically, and there should have been more comment on it in the context of the report. Carers do not now have any statutory right to demand a service or even an assessment. Moreover, in the present arrangements for community care there is no provision for grievance procedures after assessment, for appeals on assessment or for reassessment or review, which would often be helpful.
The other question that worries many people in social services is the confusion that has arisen concerning the measurement of unmet need. Local authorities appear to have been discouraged from making a note of unmet need —yet surely the Minister must accept that measurement of a national care deficit would help any Government to address the problems that we face in developing a proper community care policy.
It would have been helpful if there had been some discussion on the problems arising from the rundown of the Independent Living Fund, which to my knowledge is having an impact on community care in many cases. The limit of £500 is pushing people into institutional care when that could have been avoided. According to parliamentary answers that I have received, that is happening in various parts of the country. Housing provision, too, should have been touched upon, because in anybody's book housing is one of the most fundamental elements of community care.
There have also been some important contributions on wider issues connected with social work. I commend the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for his reference to a general social services council. He made a point that Ministers should take up. It is no good people, especially Conservative Members, bashing social workers about lack of professionalism when social workers themselves are saying that they want a professional body that will regulate and ensure good standards. The Government cannot sit back and ignore the demands of the profession for such an important body.
The significant and profound difference in ideology between speeches by Opposition Members and most of those by Conservative Members has come across clearly. The differences really do come down to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich called ideology, The Minister was obsessed with the need to use the independent and private sector, and his speech was riddled with comments on that theme.
The speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) consisted of his desire to see beds filled in private homes. Conservative Members see care as a business. That is the fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition. Community care is not a business. Community care is about addressing the real needs of vast numbers of people which will not be met by simply leaving the provision to the market.

Mr. Bowis: May I reply to some of the points which were raised? The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) raised a number of items which he said were not addressed. Let us concentrate on those that were. He

referred to the question of charging, which is, of course, one way in which to bring a contribution from users into the provision of social services. It is discretionary. It is always supposed to be according to ability to pay and not to exceed that and it is perfectly reasonable.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) raised an important point about the Mencap home. I hope that the Isle of Wight social services will listen to the points that he made and we shall certainly consider that further with him. He also referred to matters affecting the island's budget. He will know, as I know, that the island's budget for social services as a whole will rise by 12·4 per cent. in the current year. He will know as I know that the authorities there have had problems in the past because of their especial cost of fire prevention provision, being an island. He will also know, because we have discussed it before, that in social services we cannot take on board the other aspects of local government funding. The island's council has to use its resources efficiently and sensibly. I must say to him that his director of social services was the only one in the whole country who had not understood that the money from the first year's transitional grant was going to the standard spending assessment in the second year. We shall consider the points that my hon. Friend raised on the question of the underspent reallocation.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) referred to the allocation for her borough. That represents an increase in the current year of 12·7 per cent. for Rochdale. She also referred to the south-west and, in the case of Devon, there has been a 13·5 per cent. increase in total resources in the current year and an increase of 17·7 per cent. for Cornwall. I hope that she will tell her political friends in that part of the world that that settlement is generous. It requires in return the efficient use of resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was correct in his assessment of what has been achieved. He talked of good progress and that is the message which has come from all the monitoring that we have conducted in the first 11 months of community care. The right assessment is that good progress has been made and that there is more progress to be made. It is a programme for a decade, not for one year, and we shall build on that. My hon. Friend referred to the general social services council. I have discussed that with him before and I know how closely he is associated with the arguments on that issue. It is certainly an issue which we are considering and we shall have to see the sort of social work level of qualification which one may consider in such a council. Other hon. Members referred to a council which would cover everybody working in social work. There are different arguments, but we welcome the debate.
The hon. Members for Rochdale, for Wakefield, for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) and others referred to the tragic Clunis case. It is not directly relevant to the debate because it pre-dates the way in which we fund community care and goes beyond it. Nevertheless, I accept the points that have been raised about the need to take on board the lessons of that and other comparable cases if we are to reassure the public, people who have mental health problems, their families and the professionals as a whole. Let nobody suggest that we are not doing just that. It is not only a question of £10 million in response to that inquiry. That was an important £10 million towards resources in London, but it is by no means the whole answer. The whole answer begins with the £2 billion that we are putting into mental health provision in the current year and it continues


through the code of practice, which I am sure that the hon. Member for Dulwich recalls was laid before Parliament in the past year and is now revised and in current usage. The whole answer also refers to the £45 million programme for the medium secure unit building programme. It refers to the key workers training, which is so important and on which I shall be addressing a conference later in the week. It refers to the supervision register which we are requiring should be in the programme by 1 April for contracts from from that time.
It applies to the discharge guidelines on which we are consulting at present. It applies to the supervised discharge and extended leave proposals for which we are awaiting legislation. It applies to the £20 million homeless mentally ill initiative, which supports 2,000 people in the community. It applies to the £35 million supporting £50 million of specific grant—800 schemes supporting 64,000 people.
We are talking about the cost of community care doubling from £565 million to £1·2 billion this year. We are talking about £6·4 billion for social services, which is an increase of 48 per cent. in real terms since 1990–91. I have no hesitation in asking the House to support the generous settlement for this year which is provided in the report for the benefit of people in community care.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 52.

Division No. 152]
[11.54 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Amess, David
Duncan, Alan


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Eggar, Tim


Ashby, David
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Batiste, Spencer
Faber, David


Beggs, Roy
Fabricant, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Booth, Hartley
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bottornley, Peter (Eltham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bowis, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Gallie, Phil


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gardiner, Sir George


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gillan, Cheryl


Bums, Simon
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gorst, John


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coe, Sebastian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Congdon, David
Hannam, Sir John


Conway, Derek
Harris, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Harvey, Nick


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Haselhurst, Alan


Cran, James
Hawkins, Nick


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hawksley, Warren


Day, Stephen
Hayes, Jerry


Devlin, Tim
Heald, Oliver





Hendry, Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hunter, Andrew
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rows, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jessel, Toby
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sims, Roger


Kirkwood, Archy
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knapman, Roger
Spink, Dr Robert


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spring, Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Knox, Sir David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Stephen, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stern, Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sweeney, Walter


Legg, Barry
Sykes, John


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lidington, David
Thomason, Roy


Lightbown, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Luff, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Maclean, David
Trotter, Neville


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maitland, Lady Olga
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Malone, Gerald
Wallace, James


Mans, Keith
Waller, Gary


Marlow, Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Watts, John


Merchant, Piers
Wells, Bowen


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Whitney, Ray


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Whittingdale, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Nelson, Anthony
Willetts, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Nicholls, Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Norris, Steve
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Oppenheim, Phillip



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Noes


Paice, James
Mr. Irvine Patnick, and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey



Pickles, Eric





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Home Robertson, John


Barnes, Harry
Hoon, Geoffrey


Bermingham, Gerald
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Betts, Clive
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Blunkett, David
Illsley, Eric


Caborn, Richard
Jowell, Tessa


Coffey, Ann
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Connarty, Michael
Kilfoyle, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Loyden, Eddie


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McAllion, John


Darling, Alistair
McCartney, Ian


Davidson, Ian
Macdonald, Calum


Dixon, Don
McMaster, Gordon


Donohoe, Brian H.
McWilliam, John


Etherington, Bill
Mahon, Alice


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marek, Dr John


Foulkes, George
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Graham, Thomas
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Gunnell, John
Michael, Alun


Hall, Mike
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hanson, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn






Simpson, Alan



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Hugh Bayley and Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.


Wray, Jimmy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 10) (House of Commons Paper No. 218), which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Alan Simpson: I understand that the purpose of Adjournment debates is to develop a personal and intimate relationship and dialogue with the Minister involved, so I hope that you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why my starting point this evening is to say something about my family. I have three children. I suspect that, like me, most Members would happily say that they would give their life for their children. It would be a different matter if I were asked whether I could give my life "to" them? And what would I do if that, in itself, were not enough? I take that as my starting point because one of my constituents, a man named Peter Jones, has had to confront precisely those questions in dealing with the issues facing the life of his son Ross.
The national press picked up the case of Ross Jones a few weeks ago. He is likely to be the last child to receive an award from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board before the Government's new rules come into force. I should like to say a bit about Ross. At the age of three, Ross was criminally battered. He barely lived. The fact that he has survived is a great tribute to the medical skills of those who dealt with him and to the love, affection and commitment of his father, grandmother and brothers.
Ross is now 14 years old. Only a matter of months separate him from the youngest of my children. I am somewhat humbled by the knowledge that, throughout the years that I have played football with my youngest son, Peter Jones has changed nappies for his son, Ross. Throughout the years that I have taken my children out careering around the countryside, Peter Jones has carried his son Ross everywhere they have gone. As I stand and look with a sense of excitement and optimism at the ability of my children to grow into independent adults, Peter Jones knows that his son will never experience that growth into independence. Ross will for ever be a child's mind trapped in an adult's body that does not really work.
The reward that Ross is likely to receive through the CICB will be about £1·3 million. The award will be based on an assessment of the actual damages that he has suffered and the "actual" costs of care entailed in supporting Ross and ensuring that his family are able to live with him in a caring and loving environment. He began to be carried around when he was three years old and his grandmother was in her 60s; he is now 14 years old and his grandmother is in her 70s and riven by arthritis, so the position has changed greatly. The family's greatest fear has been that they would not have the physical ability or financial resources to continue to provide the supportive and loving environment with which they have been able to surround him in the 11 years since he was criminally injured.
Despite everything, Ross is lucky. He comes from a remarkable family who have been able to give him a degree of care and love that is a tribute to the best parts of society. He is lucky in that he will have received the award before the changes in the rules. If Ross Jones's claim had been entered after this April, the maximum amount that he would have been able to receive would have been £250,000. His family would have been left in the dreadful position of having to decide what would be best for him. Would it be better for Ross to live a long life, drag them


into penury and be left, should he outlive them, in penury, isolation and loneliness himself? Or should they hope that he dies before the money runs out? That is an appalling choice to confront the victims of the most serious multiple criminal injuries. Yet it is precisely the choice with which such families will be confronted under the new scheme.
The danger is that Ross will be the last in a line of victims to be compensated for the actual injuries received, based on the actual costs of care that they will face for the rest of their lives. Instead, there will be a system of arbitrary tariffs. I do not think that the public outside the House can begin to understand or sympathise with the idea of a victim of child abuse receiving a maximum award of £1,000—the same amount as that awarded for a chipped tooth. I do not think that they will understand that rape victims should be entitled to a maximum of £7,500, the same as if they had suffered a fractured hip or a broken knee. They will not understand how victims of multiple rape should be entitled to a maximum award of £10,000. They will not understand how, for those who lose an eye, the award of £20,000 will apply whether the victim lost his or her eyesight at the age of eight or 80. In a world peopled by humans, the implications are far more complex.
The public will not understand the Government logic that proposes developing a new scheme around a framework that ignores the idea of separate calculations for loss of earnings, medical expenses or the consequences of medical multiple injuries.
Instead of a human-focused system of compensation and awards, we are moving towards a system of arbitrary ceilings. Not content with rate capping, it seems that the Government are now intent on death capping and disability capping. The police officer who, under the current system, having been attacked and having to retire permanently disabled, received an award of £121,167 would be cash-limited to £7,500 under the new scheme. The mother of two children—whose husband was stabbed to death and died on their doorstep—who received an award of £137,236 would be limited to £17,500.
There have been problems under the existing scheme, but the nature of those problems was clear: they were mainly to do with medical delays, with the absence of legal aid and with the lack of a statutory framework of criminal compensation on the same basis as the compensation available under civil law. What the Government propose is to move us from injustice to rough justice. It is, in fact, a movement towards no justice at all. The proposals seem to be about the abandoning or devaluing of the victim rather than putting the victim first. They are about having a crazy system which is tariff-centred and not people-centred. Fundamentally, they are about the saving of money.
On 31 March 1993, the then Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), wrote a letter to the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in which he said:
The real costs of the Scheme lie in the size of the compensation bill … [A] major element in the compensation bill is the size of the award … Once the basis on which payments are made is changed, with the tariff scheme, the linkage to common law damages and to their rate of increase will be broken.
The current Minister made it even clearer in his answer in Hansard on 3 February this year, when he pointed out the actual savings involved. There would be savings over a three-year period, with a 25 per cent. reduction, from £204

million to £153 million, in the amount expected to be paid out in criminal compensation. It would be an enormous figure for those actually making the claims, but we ought to put it in context. What are large amounts of money for victims of criminal attacks are small beer for the Government.
The figure needs to be seen against a different set of measures. It amounts to one third of 1 per cent. of the £13·8 billion of public debt that the Government wrote off in the privatisation of public industries. It is less than the £57·6 million "bung" that the Government tried to give to British Aerospace when they sought to palm off Rover on it, and which has now had to be repaid by British Aerospace.
It is against those sorts of figures that the scheme must really be judged. It is a shabby way to treat victims of serious crime. It is an insult to innocence. It is an affront to those who might have sustained their injuries by trying to prevent a crime rather than perpetrate one.
Outside the House, the Government need to understand that they barely have a supporter in the land. They have no backers among the public, who see this as a measure of the Government's contempt for them. The Victim Support campaign now has 37 organisations, including the Police Federation, the Prison Officers' Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Trades Union Congress and the General Council of the Bar, all of whom are flatly opposed to the tariff scheme that the Government seek to introduce. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, in its statement, told the Minister:
The intention throughout the history of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme has been that an individual victim of a crime of violence should be compensated in exactly the same way as he would have been had he sued his assailant in the Civil Court.
I presume that that would apply equally had the "he" been a "she". It then said:
the Board have repeatedly made clear to Ministers their considered view that, whilst sharing the aims of Ministers to provide as efficient and quick a service as possible, these proposals are fundamentally wrong.
Tomorrow, in another place, the Government will hear noble Lords of all parties roundly denounce the basis of the Government's proposals. If that is not enough, the Government should understand that their proposals would clearly breach the European convention on compensating victims of violent crime, article 4 of which makes it clear that
compensation shall cover at least loss of earnings, and in the case of dependants, loss of maintenance".
Last March, the Home Office Minister told the CICB that the reformed scheme would no longer offer compensation, but only
a tangible recognition of society's sympathy and concern for the victim".
Victims of crime do not want "tea and sympathy" from the Government. They want decency, equality before the law, justice and sufficiency. That is not much to ask in a society that claims to be civilised.
How do we begin to enshrine those principles in a framework of criminal injuries compensation? I suggest that we adopt a different notion of "back to basics", which involves setting out clear and simple principles. First, the victim of criminal injury should be treated no less favourably than someone similarly injured who obtains compensation through the civil court—a system based on common law damages. Second, compensation must incorporate at least four elements: the cost of future care; loss of earnings; medical costs; and a dependant's


entitlements. Third, victims must have access to legal aid. Fourth, a victim's relatives must have entitlements to cover their own financial loss resulting from the victim's injury or death. Finally, those suffering long-term serious injury should have access to "structured settlements", adapting to the actual costs of care, not the arbitrary indifference of a tariff system.
The good news is that the framework for such a scheme already exists in the form of the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. The whole framework now operates within Northern Ireland, so the Government need not acquire the skill of joined-up thinking; they must simply learn to listen and understand. The failure to do so will leave society open to serious and damaging consequences, especially for those in Northern Ireland. Only a fool would presume that, if the rest of the United Kingdom changes to an arbitrary system of tariffs, the existing provisions in Northern Ireland could be guaranteed to survive tomorrow.
The second consequence is that the families of the most seriously injured victims would be haunted by the fear of penury if the victims lived too long, torn apart by feuds over how to divide the windfall spoils in the event of a victim's early death, or feel a sense of foreboding about what would be left of the victim's life if he or she happened to outlive the carers within the family. And the victims themselves will be embittered by the arbitrariness of this tin-pot tariff system.
I urge the Minister to recognise only two things: that the current proposals are a framework for fools and horses, but that it is not too late to turn around.

The Minister or State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): We are in the business not of giving victims tea and sympathy but of providing the most generous compensation scheme for victims in the world. When the tariff scheme is introduced, it will remain the most generous compensation scheme in the world.
Let me make it clear that the Government are committed to ensuring that the needs of victims are properly recognised, and that they are treated with consideration and respect. That is why we have increased the grant to Victim Support by more than 50 per cent. in the past three years and why we are increasing it by a further 20 per cent. next year to more than £10 million. Very few organisations today have benefited from such a massive increase in expenditure.
We have accepted all the recommendations to help victims in the royal commission's report, and even now we are taking further measures to improve the position of victims in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
Support for victims can be provided in many forms. It can be practical, emotional and financial. I want to concentrate on the last aspect tonight.
Our criminal injuries compensation scheme has been in operation since 1964. As far as we are aware, it is the second oldest such scheme in the world and the most generous anywhere.
Listening to the hon. Gentleman tonight, one would get the impression that we were paying out just a few million pounds, and that other countries were much more generous, so it is worth putting on record the fact that we pay out far more compensation than all the other countries in the European Union put together. Only the United States

of America pays out more in total than we do, and considering that there are considerably more victims of crime in the United States, our awards are 3.5 times more generous than the average United States award.
We shall continue making generous awards to victims —that will not change—but a scheme whose essential features were designed 30 years ago, when reported crime was much lower and the number of applications far fewer, is no longer the right way to achieve that aim.
We now need a simpler, more straightforward and transparent scheme that gets awards to victims reasonably quickly and with as little fuss and inconvenience as possible. Applicants should start with a good idea of how their claim will be considered, and how much money they are likely to get. They should not need to seek specialised expensive legal advice to make an application. That can be very expensive, and can slow things down.
We do not believe that those basic requirements can be met by a complex quasi-legal scheme based on common law damages and individual assessments. We believe, however, that they will be met by our new tariff scheme.
Under the scheme, compensation will be paid more quickly and simply from a scale of awards for injuries of comparable severity. All eligible applicants with similar injuries will be treated in the same way, and will receive the same lump sum payments. Despite suggestions to the contrary, those payments will continue to be generous. As our White Paper made clear, the tariff has been based on awards made recently by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, reflated to bring them up to current-day values.
There is nothing arbitrary about the scale of the tariffs. If the hon. Gentleman considers that the award for rape victims is insulting, he should complain to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, because we took the board's average award to rape victims and increased it. We have not picked the figures out of thin air; we have put all the compensation awards the board has made into the computer and added them up, and we came up with the median award.
The net result is that at least 54 per cent. of claimants can expect to get as much as or more than they could have expected under the present arrangements. The figure will be still higher, because the level of inflation we assumed when setting the tariff is starting to look extremely generous. Moreover, under the tariff scheme, it will no longer be necessary to deduct from the award any benefits that claimants may have received from the Department of Social Security. That too will benefit many claimants, and will have the added advantage of speeding up payments.
There will be a new, fully independent appeals system for those dissatisfied with their award. Unlike the present arrangements, in which the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board effectively acts as both judge and jury, there will be complete separation of the initial decision taking and the appeals process. That too will benefit victims.
We have been asked why we did not bring into force the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which, for most practical purposes, would have made the present scheme statutory. The simple answer is that the board asked us not to, because it would have seriously disrupted its work in dealing with the ever growing backlog of cases. The Home Affairs Committee in 1990 accepted the force of that argument.
In the meantime, the picture has been changing dramatically, even since the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The volume of cases received has gone up 50 per cent. and, regrettably, is still rising, while the amount paid out in compensation has increased threefold. The old scheme is simply not geared to cope with such levels of business. That is why we need the radically different approach that is provided by our tariff scheme.
Some cynics say that the real purpose of the change is merely to save money. That is not the case. The main objective is to provide a better service to victims. The key feature of the tariff scheme is that awards are based on those given under the old system. Most victims will receive as much as, or more than, they would have done under that system. The tariff scheme will still remain one of the most generous in the world.
Once the changeover to the new system is complete, the expenditure on compensation will continue to rise. Any hon. Member who suggests that the global amount that we will be paying out will be cut, or will be less than we are currently paying, is talking nonsense; it is not true.
The overall expenditure on the tariff scheme will continue to rise, but it will rise less quickly than it would have done had we kept the present compensation scheme. I make no apologies for that. Securing best value for money is something to which we must have regard. We cannot simply allow a major area of expenditure to continue its rapid upward spiral unchecked.
Concern was expressed that the tariff scheme will not take individual circumstances into account and, more particularly, that it will no lnger pay loss of earnings. It has even been said that this contravenes the European convention on the compensation of victims of violent crime, which the United Kingdom has ratified. I do not agree, but I can tell the House that we are sending full details of the tariff scheme to the Council of Europe, as the convention requires, and will take careful note of any response made.
I am tempted to say that, if any hon. Member is suggesting that Britain should put its scheme on the same basis as Europe, my hon. Friends in the Treasury would agree, and would say, "Could we please not pay out £150 million this year, but merely the £6 million or whatever that Germany paid out?"
I believe that the tariff scheme includes an element for loss of wages and the other heads of damage currently payable, although those heads are no longer assessed separately. The tariff levels were set by reference to awards made by the board, and those awards included loss of earnings and so on. So the tariff awards similarly include an element for loss of earnings inside each award and include other heads of damage, albeit unquantified and not assessed separately.
I accept that some people will get less than they might have expected under the present scheme—that is an inevitable consequence of such a major change—but it must be remembered that most claims are comparatively small. In 1992–93, 86 per cent. of all awards were under £5,000, and only 5 per cent. exceeded £10,000. That means that most of those who will get less will not get much less.
That is a rather different picture from the one that has been painted, which may have left some hon. Members with the impression that most people will be losers under the new scheme, and that they will all lose badly. The awards will be paid more quickly and with much less fuss. It is important that victims who want to put the incident behind them as quickly as possible and get on with their lives should get their compensation as quickly as possible.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is not the only source of state aid that victims of crime can look to. With respect, that is the mistake that the hon. Gentleman made: assuming that the only help that would be available to victims had to come from the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
Victims can rightly, and do, receive generous and long-term help from the national health service and from the Department of Social Security, as indeed can any other person in this country who sustains a non-criminal injury or is unfortunate enough to suffer some accident or comparable misfortune, with no one else to sue for it, or if it is not a criminal injury and they cannot get financial help.
Many thousands of people suffer the horrendous injuries referred to by the hon. Gentleman. There is no one to sue and no compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, but the full resources of the national health service and the Department of Social Security—all the caring help and the various allowances—are payable to them. They will be payable to victims of crime as well, and rightly so.
Our tariff scheme will not differentiate between different classes, or between different occupational groups; everyone experiencing similar injuries will receive the same award. We consider that arrangement more generally understandable, and no less fair, than the current system.
I know that some will dispute that, arguing that the tariff scheme cannot cope with certain types of injury, such as shock, child abuse or sexual offences; the hon. Gentleman, for instance, suggested that the tariff levels for particular injuries were wrong. He argued that certain types of injury were more serious than others attracting the same award. I do not accept that argument.

Mr. Simpson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he is calling me a liar, we must address the point. Our tariff scheme is based on some 20,000 awards made by the board: that is the truth. It reflects the true levels. We have not picked out half a dozen figures, and produced a scheme out of our heads; we put 20,000 awards through the analysis before basing the tariffs on them, and increasing the tariffs.
The scheme therefore reflects the level of awards actually made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and maintains the relativities established.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to One o'clock.